So. Bap. fheo 

CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED, 

I) 

IN AN EXAMINATION 

OF 

LARD'S REVIEW OF JETER. 



By A. P. WILLIAMS, 

SALINE CO., MO. 

SUBJECTS DISCUSSED: 

1. EXPERIMENTAL RELIGION. 

2. PRAYER NOT THE DUTY OF THE UNBAPTIZED. 

3. THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION. 

4. BAPTISM IN ORDER TO REMISSION OF SINS. 



INTRODUCTION BY J. B. JETEK, 

RICHMOND, VA. 



NASHVILLE, TENN.: 
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLISHING HOUSE. 

NEW YORK,— SHELDON & CO. 
1860. 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by 

GRAVES, MARKS & CO., 

in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle Dis- 
trict of Tennessee. 






PART I. 



INTRODUCTION. 



A brief history of the controversy which has given birth 
to the present volume, seems to be proper. Campbellism, in 
its various stages of development, had been before the world 
for a period of more than thirty years. It was extremely 
difficult to decide what it was. All Mr. Campbell's oppo- 
nents had been charged with misunderstanding or misrepre- 
senting his views. Several " ministers and members of 
Baptist Churches," being deeply impressed with the import- 
ance of " a succinct and popular treatise upon the rise, 
progress, character, and influence of the sect of Christians 
called Disciples or Campbellites," requested the writer to 
prepare it. With this request he considered it his duty to 
comply. Campbellism Examined was written with the hope 
that it would tend to promote harmony between the Baptists 
and the Disciples ; or, at least, to make more obvious and 
definite the points in controversy between them. It was the 
design of the author to present a clear and candid statement 
of Mr. Campbell's peculiar theological sentiments, with a 
brief history of their development and influence. Of the 
manner in which he executed the design, the volume itself 
furnishes the best information. It was his constant aim to 
avoid all offensive personalities and opprobrious epithets, and 
to treat Mr. C, his opinions and his arguments, with all due 
respect. The writer did not hope that his work would be 
pleasing to Mr. C. and his admirers. The attempt to expose, 
however kindly and fairly, the errors, inconsistencies, contra- 
dictions and sophistries of an author, who had acquired a 
reputation for learning, and dialectic skill, aud who had so 
many admirers and eulogists, could hardly fail to create some 

(v) 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

irritation; and the degree of irritation would, of course, be 
proportionate to the success of the attempt. He did hope, 
however, that Mr. C, if not led to confess his errors — a duty 
which a polemic finds it hard to perform — would, at least, be 
compelled to see, and gradually to abandon them. 

So soon as Campbellism Examined made its appearance, all 
the journals in the interest of the " current reformation," 
commenced a furious attack on it. The vials of their wrath 
were mercilessly poured on the head of the devoted author. 
In this onslaught the Millennial Harbinger, edited by Mr. A. 
Campbell, took the lead. Everything was said to disparage 
the book and its author. It was represented as being false 
in its statements, feeble in its arguments, mean in its spirit, 
and, on the whole, unworthy of notice. As the work, how- 
ever, had been respectably indorsed, it was deemed necessary 
to review it. Mr. Campbell undertook the task himself, not 
thinking it wise to commit it to feebler or less practiced 
hands. He commenced his review with the promise of the 
speedy and utter refutation of the volume, and even thank- 
ful for the opportunity of exposing its errors. There was 
no indication of the lack of zeal, or of time, for the redemp- 
tion of the pledge. Through nine tedious numbers, and many 
other extended articles, in the Harbinger, did he labor to 
discredit the statements, refute the arguments, and disparage 
the author of Campbellism Examined. Suddenly new light 
broke upon his mind. He became dissatisfied with his re- 
view. He was writing it under great disadvantages. The 
exigencies of the case demanded that he should prepare a 
book. That he had failed to redeem the promise, so vaunt- 
ingly made, his most partial friends could not but perceive. 
They were all satisfied, however, that what was not done in 
the prolix review in the Harbinger, would be thoroughly 
done in the forthcoming book. 

One long accustomed to notice the tactics of Mr. Campbell, 
should surely not be judged uncharitably for suspecting that 
the promise of a book was a mere ruse to cover a retreat 
from the contest. The writer had no expectation that he 
would publish a book in reply to Campbellism Examined. 
The Introduction to the proposed volume, appearing at full 



INTRODUCTION. VH 

length in the pages of the Harbinger, did not satisfy the in- 
credulous that it would ever see the light. So well convinced 
was the author of Campbellisni Examined, that the promise 
would not be fulfilled, that he proceeded at once to reply to 
the review published in the Harbinger, in a pamphlet entitled 
Campbellism Re-exaniined. 

This pamphlet was received by Mr. Campbell and his 
friends with the silence of contempt. So it is inferred from 
the language of Mr. Moses E. Lard. "The reader," he says, 
" will doubtless feel curious to know why it is that Mr. 
Jeters's second book — 'Campbellism Re-examined' — has been 
treated so cavalierly. The writer's reply is simply that he 
has seen and read the little swaggering thing : should a more 
elaborate reason be demanded, that reason must be sought 
in the character of the silence with which the work is passed." 
One must be endowed with supernatural power so to discuss 
" the character of the silence." Mr. L. would have us think 
that it was the silence of contempt. Perhaps it was. But we 
are still left to conjecture whether the contempt was real or 
feigned. Perhaps it was the silence of discretion. There are 
certainly some things in the pamphlet which Mr. Campbell 
ought to answer; but it is presumed that he never will. 
Whatever other characters his silence may have, it will pretty 
certainly be profound and perpetual. 

As was expected, Mr. Campbell's promise to publish a book 
was not fulfilled. The portico was erected, but the temple 
was a failure. The man began to build a house, but was 
not able to finish it. The Introduction appeared, inspiring in 
many minds the delusive hope that the book would soon fol- 
low. Well, what is the excuse for the failure to publish the 
book? Mr. C. informs us in his Introduction to Mr. Lard's 
work — "Not being an impartial judge in my own case, and 
being absorbed in matters of transcendent moment, we found 
a brother, comparatively young," etc. Mr. C. furnishes two 
reasons for the failure. First, "Not being," he says, "an 
impartial judge in my own case." What does this mean? 
Does his partiality — his want of candor — unfit him for de- 
fending his cherished Reformation ? This seems to be the 
meaning of the language. Or does it contain an intimation 



V1U INTRODUCTION. 

that the brotherhood deemed it important that the defense 
of his principles should be intrusted to an "impartial judge;" 
that is, to one more discriminating, more vigorous in debate, 
and, especially, less embarrassed by his antecedents than Mr. 
Campbell? Is the scepter passing from his hands ? Secondly, 
''Being absorbed/' he continues, "in matters of transcendent 
moment ; ' — And were not all these matters fully known to him 
before he promised to write the book ? His duties as pres- 
ident of Bethany College, as editor of the Harbinger, and 
as a sub-reviser of the Bible Union, were all, it is presumed; 
as well understood when he was writing the Introduction, 
as they were subsequently. 

In due time a volume, entitled, Review of Campbellism Ex- 
amined, written by Mr. Campbell's substitute, Mr. Moses E. 
Lard, of Missouri, was issued from the press. Mr. Lard is a 
more discriminating, more methodical, and more vigorous, but 
less adroit writer than Mr. Campbell; and he is, be}~ond all 
comparison, more straightforward, clear, and undisguised in 
the statement of his opinions. It has been impossible to under- 
stand Mr. Campbell's views. His language is contradictory. 
All opinions, orthodox and heterodox — from high Calvinism 
down to heartless rationalism — may be easily culled from 
his ponderous volumes. The inability to interpret his words 
might be ascribed to inattention or prejudice, were it not 
that his opponents, almost without exception, have fallen 
under the same condemnation. Not long since, in an article 
in the Harbinger, he stated, in substance, that Robert Owen, 
the infidel, was the only man among his opponents to whom 
he could award the praise of fairness and candor. Where 
there are so many illusions there must be mist. So many 
ghosts surely could not be conjured up in daylight. It is 
almost impossible to misunderstand the views of Mr. Lard. 
He embraces the most objectionable sentiments of Mr. Camp- 
bell, states them clearly, defends them earnestly, and follows 
them boldly to their legitimate consequences. Mr. Lard's 
book is a full development of the Reformation as it was un- 
derstood in the days of what Mr. Campbell styled the " Do- 
ver Decree." The review is indorsed, in all its principles 
and expositions, by the leader of the reformation. Hence* 



INTRODUCTION. IX 

forth, there need be no doubt as to its principles and 
practices. We have a clear, stereotyped and authentic state- 
ment of them. One effect anticipated from the publication 
of Campbellism Examined, has been fully realized. The 
points of difference between the Baptists and the Disciples 
have been clearly defined. The line of demarcation between 
the parties has been unmistakably drawn. Whether the Dis- 
ciples in their future discussions will firmly abide by the 
landmarks which Mr. Lard, with the sanction of Mr. Camp- 
bell, has set for them, remains to be seen. While we deplore 
the prevalence of these sentiments, we can not but rejoice 
that they are brought out into daylight, so that they may be 
understood, guarded against, and refuted. 

There were two reasons against our replying to Mr. Lard's 
book, either of which would have governed us. First, We 
had discussed the questions at issue with Mr. Campbell him- 
self, the acknowledged head of the reformation, the chief 
patron of the " Ancient (Bethany) Gospel." We had pub- 
lished our views of the principles of the reformation in 
Campbellism Examined. Mr. Campbell has made a long-con- 
tinued and laborious effort to defend these principles, through 
the pages of his widely circulated Magazine. We had re- 
joined. Mr. Campbell had enjoyed ample time and oppor- 
tunity for the vindication of his sentiments. There was no 
reason that we should turn aside to contend with one of his 
subalterns, who was vauntingly brought forward as "a brother 
comparatively young — one of the graduates of Bethany Col- 
lege," to do what Mr. C. had failed to do. We had no wish 
to be engaged in a perpetual discussion. Our views of Camp- 
bellism were before the public ; and we were willing to abide 
the decision of that tribunal. Secondly, The bitter person- 
alities, and grossly offensive epithets, that darken almost every 
page of Mr. Lard's Review, forbade a reply from us. We 
felt, and were ready to acknowledge, that we were no match 
for him in the use of sucli weapons. He had reached a pre- 
eminence in the arts of abuse, to which we did not aspire. 
Meanwhile, it was obvious, within the range of our observa- 
tion, that the virulent spirit of the work had neutralized its 
influence. Even his warm admirers, who extolled the book 
1* 



X INTRODUCTION. 

for its logical acumen and force of diction, were compelled 
to enter a caveat against its spirit; and impartial men were 
ready to exclaim, in the language of James, "Doth a foun- 
tain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" 

Without any suggestion from us, directly or indirectly, 
Elder A. P. Williams, of Missouri, undertook to reply to Mr. 
Lard's book. He resides in the vicinity of Mr. Lard, and 
has taken the full measure of his abilities. A part of Mr. 
Williams's reply has been published in weekly numbers in 
the Western Watchman. The object of the writer has been, 
not so much to repel in detail the attacks made on Camp- 
bellism Examined, as to discuss the important principles set 
forth by Mr. Lard. The part of the reply which has fallen 
under our notice is admirable. Mr. W. marches straight 
forward to his object. His reason iug is clear, strong, and 
resistless. It is amusing to see with what ease he lifts the 
vail from the sophistries of Mr. Lard. He takes a compre- 
hensive grasp of his subject, dissects it with a masterly hand, 
and causes the light of truth to shine through every part of it. 
He is at home in the Scriptures ; and has evidently drawn 
his theological views from a careful, independent study of 
them. He may have occasionally misconceived the meaning 
of a proof-text; but this defect is abundantly compensated 
by the variety, force, and originality of the arguments with 
which he fortifies his positions. The style of the work is 
concise, clear, and nervous. Its spirit is excellent, and con- 
trasts most favorably with the virulent example of his oppo- 
nent. It is calm, firm, kind, forbearing. If the latter part 
of the work is executed in a style corresponding with the 
first part — of which we have no doubt — it will leave nothing 
te be desired in the discussion of Campbellism. The system 
will be laid bare, and its errors and evil tendencies fully ex- 
posed. All who wish to view the system in its last and 
worst phases, should read Mr. Lard's Review and Mr. Wil- 
liams's reply. 

We can not close this Introduction without referring briefly 
to the present aspects of the Bethany reformation. There 
are two obvious tendencies in it — one is to evangelicalism, 
and the other to rationalism. The tendency to evangelic 



INTRODUCTION. XI 

truth is seen in numerous articles published in the journals 
devoted to the "Current Reformation," in the discussions on 
spiritual influence, and in several local divisions which 
have recently occurred among the Disciples, that have been 
caused, in part, at least, by conflicting views of the Spirit's 
influence. We have seen, within the last few years, several 
statements of the doctrine of spiritual influence, from the 
pens of reformers, that would be readily indorsed by the 
Baptist denomination; and their views were placed in direct 
antagonism to the rationalistic views advocated by one party 
among them. In short, they are beginning among themselves 
the very battle which nearly thirty years ago was fought be- 
tween them and the Baptists. The tendency to rationalism 
is clearly and sadly manifested in Mr. Lard's book, and, it 
is to be feared, in a majority of the reformation journals. 
The inherent depravity of man is not denied ; but it is ex- 
plained as mere peccability — a liability to sin — an infirmity 
to which Adam was as much subject as his posterity. The 
agency of the Spirit in conversion is not formally rejected; 
but by this is meant that " the Spirit spends on the mind 
of the sinner in conversion no influence except such as resides 
in the truth, as divine, as of the Spirit" Not only is the 
phrase, u Christian experience," repudiated, but the thing 
which it is employed among evangelical Christians to signify 
is ridiculed. A man, according to the system, becomes a 
Christian, by his own unaided powers, without prayer, pre- 
cisely as he would become an Odd Fellow or a Son of Tem- 
perance, except that in the latter case he would be moved 
by uninspired and the former by inspired arguments. Con- 
version, instead of being a Divine change, comprehending a 
new heart — a new life — a partaking of the Divine nature — 
is a reformation originating simply in the force of truth and 
ending in immersion. The inevitable result of these opinions, 
if Divine grace does not counteract their tendency, must 
be the abandonment of all spiritual religion, and the adoption 
of a rationalism as heartless and barren as that of the Ger- 
man Xeologists. 

The reader will be curious to know what ground Mr. Camp- 
bell occupies in regard to these diverging tendencies of his 



XH INTRODUCTION. 

" Ancient Gospel." Who can tell? Both parties appeal with 
confidence to the writings of their brother Campbell in sup- 
port of their peculiar phases of the Bethany system; and 
both parties are right. Page after page may be quoted from 
his writings on either side. He is clearly a two-sided theo- 
logian — having an orthodox and a heterodox, a spiritual and 
a rationalistic side. We have looked over the pages of the 
Harbinger to see if he will define his position ; but we have 
looked in vain. It is now settled that he will never attempt 
to reconcile the conflicting statements of his theology. We 
admire his prudence. Xo human ingenuity can either recon- 
cile or conceal the contradictions of his system ; or rather of 
his unsystematic speculations. But we by no means envy 
his position. Standing with one foot on each side of the line, 
his situation must be embarrassing and painful; but there he 
is doomed to stand till he falls. He may, as unfortunately 
he is accustomed to do, continue to denounce as traducers 
those who expose his inconsistencies; but he does not, will 
not, can not define his position, without involving himself in 
fresh complications. 

Our hope of the reformation is less sanguine than it was 
when we wrote Campbellism Examined; but still we have 
hope. The Disciples hold some redeeming sentiments. As 
already stated, there are some hopeful tendencies and indica- 
tions among them. They are held together by the magic of 
a name, and by a leader whose authority they have indig- 
nantly denied, and implicitly followed. It is reasonable to 
suppose that when Mr. C. shall have been removed from his 
leadership, by the infirmities of age, or the hand of death, 
that the diverse tendencies of the sect will be more strongly 
developed, and disintegration will probably follow. Mean- 
time the course which the Baptists should pursue toward the 
Disciples is plain. It is utterly impossible that they should, 
without an abandonment of their principles, and a forgetful- 
ness of their history, look on the sentiments put forth in Mr. 
Lard's book, except with disapprobation and grief. They 
must oppose them, firmly, earnestly, constantly, but still 
kindly, as they reverence the Scriptures, and desire the salva- 
tion of men. They should, however, approve and commend 



INTRODUCTION. X1H 

what is good, and cheerfully give what encouragement they 
can to every right tendency among the Disciples. Most sin- 
cerely should we sympathize with those who are contending for 
the real, personal, efficient agency of the Holy Spirit, without 
which there is neither repentance, nor faith, nor piety, nor 
a well-founded hope of everlasting life. 

J. B. Jeter. 

Richmond, April, 18G0. 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION.— Bt Jeter. 

PAGB 

1. History of controversy giving birth to this volume v 

2. Estimate of Mr. Lard viii 

3. Reasons for not replying to Mr. Lard ix 

4. Reasons which induced Elder "Williams to reply x 

5. The two obvious tendencies of the Bethany Reformation.. x 

6. Hopes of Reformation less sanguine xii 



PART I. 



CHAPTER I. 

CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE. 

§ 1. Statement of Mr. Lard's position 21 

§ 2. Christian Experience defined 23 

§ 3. Is it right to give a relation of it before the Church?.. 29 

(i.) The Bible sanctions it elsewhere 30 

(n.) It furnishes one example 31 

(in.) Constructively, it requires it 32 

(iv.) It invests the Church with the right to require 

it — Makes it necessary for it to do so 33 

(v.) Grounds of opposition taken by Mr. Lard 35 

\ 4. Mr. Lard's second reason 37 

Author's first argument in reply 39 

Second argument 41 

Third argument 42 

§ 5. Mr. Lard's third reason 47 

(XT) 



XVI CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IT. 

THE DITTY OF THE UNBAPTIZED TO PRAY. 

PAGE 

\ 1. Mr. Lard's position — It is not — Reasons 51 

Issue formed — First argument 54 

Second argument 57 

Third " 59 

Fourth " 64 

Fifth " 74 

CHAPTER III. 

THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION. 

\ 1. (i.) Mr. Lard's position stated — First argument 77 

(n.) Mr. Lard's first argument stated and answered 84 

§ 2. Mr. Lard's second argument reviewed 86 

I 3. Mr. Lard's third argument stated and reviewed 96 

# 4. Mr. Lard's fourth argument stated and reviewed 104 

§ 5. Mr. Lard's fifth argument stated and noticed 114 

\ 6. Mr. Lard's sixth argument stated and reviewed 115 

\ 7. Mr. Lard's seventh argument stated and reviewed 121 

\ 8. Mr. Lard's eighth argument stated and reviewed 125 

$ 9. Mr. Lard's ninth argument stated and reviewed 130 

\ 10. Mr. Lard's tenth argument stated and reviewed 134 

\ 11. Mr. Lard's eleventh argument noticed 143 

§ 12. Mr. Lard's twelfth argument stated and reviewed 145 

§ 13. Mr. Lard's thirteenth argument stated and reviewed... 147 

g 14. Mr. Lard's fourteenth and last argument considered... 150 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION Continued. 

\ 1. Review of Mr. Lard's notice of Jeter's objections 154 

\ 2. Review of Mr. Lard's objections to Mr. Jeter's views 

of human depravity 161 

$ 3. Power to sin reviewed, etc 169 

\ 4. Mr. Lard reviews Mr. Jeter's second objection with 

Mr. Campbell's theory reviewed 171 



CONTENTS. Xvii 

PAGE 

I 5. Mr. Lard's review of Mr. Jeter's third objection to 

Campbellism reviewed 183 

\ 6. Mr. Lard's review of Mr. Jeter's fourth objection con- 
sidered 194 

Mr. Lard's review of Mr. Jeter's fifth objection consid- 
ered 199 

I 7. Mr. Lard's review of Mr. Jeter's sixth objection con- 
sidered 205 

\ 8. Mr. Lard's review of Mr. Jeter's seventh objection ex- 
amined 213 

CHAPTEK V. 

THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION Continued. 

§ 1. Argument in favor based on Gen. vi : 5 ; viii : 21 ; 

Psalm xiv: 2, 3" 223 

§ 2. Argument based on Matt, xxviii : 19, 20 230 

\ 3. Argument based on Acts xviii : 9, 10 234 

\ 4. Argument based on Acts xi: 20, 21 235 

\ 5. Argument based on Acts xiv: 27 238 

Conclusion of First Part 242 



PART II, 



CHAPTEK VI. 

BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 

Lard's Review of Jeter s Views Examined. 

? 1. Baptism identical with Eegeneration considered 247 

£ 2. Baptism a part of Conversion considered.. 250 

§ 3. Mr. Lard's views of remission of sins examined 254 

\ 4. Sins remitted in connection with faith — Argument 

first 256 

§ 5. Argument second 268 

§ 6. Argument third 272 

§ 7, Argument fourth 276 



XV111 CONTENTS. 

PAGH 

1 8. Argument fifth 278 

§ 9. Argument sixth 280 

§ 10. Mr. Lard's first argument examined 290 

§ 11. Mr. Lard's second argument examined 295 

§ 12. Mr. Lard's third argument examined 310 

§ 13. Mr. Lard's fourth argument examined 316 

# 14. Mr. Lard's' fifth argument examined 319 

§ 15. Mr. Lard's sixth argument examined 328 

§ 16. Mr. Lard's seventh argument examined 336 

2 17. Mr. Lard's eighth argument examined 342 

\ 18. Mr. Lard's ninth argument examined 344 



APPENDIX. 

THE DESIGN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Commemoration of the burial and resurrection of Jesus 347 



AE" EXAMINATION 



LARD'S REVIEW OF JETER. 



WE have reached a period, in my estimation, very 
propitious. The publication of Dr. Jeter's u Camp- 
bellism Examined" has called into being a Review, by 
Elder M. E, Lard, of Liberty, Mo., "a graduate of Beth- 
any College," in which the doctrines of Mr. Campbell and 
his adherents are set forth without mitigation or disguise. 
The issues between them and the Baptists — and, I may 
add, all orthodox Christians — are clearly made out. We 
know now precisely what we have to meet. And the 
world know what they are pledged to maintain and de- 
fend. 

In taking up my pen, I deem it necessary to state 
that it is no part of my design to notice Mr. Lard's work 
as a Review of Campbellism Examined, or of vindi- 
cating the author of the latter work. Mr. Jeter needs 
not my vindication. He is fully competent to take care 
of himself. His work, in my humble judgment, will 
not suffer from this Review. It will be made the more 
useful, because it will be more generally and carefully 
read. And all it needs to help it survive the attacks of 
the Review is a careful and candid reading. As to Mr. 

(19) 



20 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Lard's personal attacks on Dr. Jeter, they are like arrows 
shot against a cliff: they will either fall to the ground 
with their points broken, or rebound upon him who 
holds the bow. 

My object in writing is simply to notice four points 
discussed in Mr. Lard's book, namely, " Christian Ex- 
perience/' " The Duty of Unbaptized Persons to Pray," 
" The Agency of the Holy Spirit in Conversion/' and 
" Baptism in Order to remission of Sins." 

I must further be allowed to say, that the love of 
controversy has had nothing to do in prompting me to 
write. The expressed wish of brethren, whose judgment 
I respect, and the hope of doing good, have made up the 
prompting motive. The latter consideration particularly 
has weighed with me. I think Mr. Lard can be met in 
such a manner as to do good, because he has opened 
the way for a successful reply, and because he has left 
no room for dodging. His denomination must stand by 
his book, or come over to our side of the issues he has 
made. To one of these alternatives they can be driven. 
If they stand by the book it will soon crush them by 
the weight of its errors. If they repudiate it, we may 
yet have the privilege of congratulating them as having 
come to the knowledge of the truth. 

As Mr. Lard's book comes out with the indorsement 
of Mr. Campbell, we may justly conclude that it is 
regarded by him as a clear and successful exposition 
of his teachings. And as Mr. Campbell so regards it, 
of course all his followers so regard it. Then, in meet- 
ing the issues as made by him, we meet the whole 
phalanx. If we slay this Groliah, the victory is ours. 

Having premised this much, I proceed to my work. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 21 



CHAPTEE I. 

CHRISTIAN EXPERIENC-E. 
§1. 

WHAT Mr. Lard says on this subject, occupies the 
33d, 34th, 35th, 36th, and 37th pages of his book. 
I can not transcribe the whole, yet I will quote so much 
as is necessary to a proper understanding of his view 
of the subject. 

Mr. Lard, referring to what Mr. Jeter has said on 
this subject, says: 

" If we are to believe the subject to be part of Chris- 
tianity, and to accept his (Jeter's) picture of it as true, 
to deem him its friend, and Mr. Campbell its enemy, 
then, truly, may it be said that it is not from its ene- 
mies, but from its friends, that Christianity suffers its 
chief disgrace." 

Here, reader, let me give you Mr. Jeter's " picture " 
of Christian experience. He says : 

" It denotes that series of conflicts, exercises, and 
emotions, springing from a gradual knowledge of divine 
truth, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, which 
results in the conversion of the soul to Christ, and 
accompanies this event.'' 

He adds in another place : 

"I have been in the Christian ministry more than 
thirty years, and I have no recollection of having read 
in a book, or heard from the lips of any teacher, ap- 
proved by any orthodox Christian denomination, the 



22 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

description of saving experience, which did not include 
godly sorrow, the renunciation of sins, and trust in 
Christ for salvation. To represent an experience, hav- 
ing no allusion to conviction of sin, sorrow for it, hatred 
of it, the abandonment of it, faith in Christ, love to 
him, and an obedient disposition — in short, a change of 
heart — is to misrepresent." 

Reader, here is Mr. Jeter's " picture." Do you think 
that from this Christianity will suffer its " chief dis- 
grace? " 

Mr. Lard says : 

" Mr. Campbell attacked the practice in question [the 
relation of an experience before the Church] for the 
following reasons : 

"1, It is not sanctioned by the Bible. 

"2. The main point in the experience is a fiction. 

" 3. The practice fosters superstition." 

Mr. Lard " dwells for a moment " upon each of these 
reasons. He does not, however, attempt to sustain 
them by an appeal to the word of God. All he gives 
is unsupported assertion. I will notice these reasons 
presently. I wish first to give the reader the full benefit 
of all he says in support of his second reason. 

"2, The main point in the experience is a fiction. 
This point is the sense of forgiveness alleged to be felt 
by the party at the moment when his sins are supposed 
to be remitted. In his account of the ' elements of a 
Christian experience,' Mr. Jeter thought it wise to sup- 
press this. The meaning of the expression ' sense of 
forgiveness,' is concisely this : That at the instant of 
regeneration, the sinner is sensibly assured that his sins 
are remitted. But this is something which the Bible 
does not affirm. Feelings may exist, but they prove 
not remission ; impressions may be made, but they teach 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 23 

not forgiveness. In most cases we may hope the un- 
fortunate victim of this delusion may be sincere. But 
this alters not the nature of the case. Whether he 
feigns the existence of feelings that have no existence, 
(which we fear is not seldom the case,) or adopts the 
fictitious construction of others, of feelings which do 
exist, (which is perhaps more frequently the case,) the 
result is the same ; the point assumed to be the evidence 
of remission, is a fiction. No good man of strong mind, 
and unwilling to be deceived, ever yet heard related 
what is popularly called a ' Christian experience/ with- 
out feeling himself deeply moved when that part of the 
farce was approached which was to elicit a declaration 
of the sense of forgiveness. It is difficult to say which 
is the greater — the pity of such a man for the deluded 
creature who sits before him on the inquisitorial bench, 
to be plied with every silly question which ignorance or 
impudence can put, or his disgust for the blind guide who 
conducts the process of torturing the feelings of a sub- 
dued and weeping sinner into every imaginable form 
that is false." 

Reader, pause here and take your breath, and then 
we will proceed to discuss what a Christian experience 
really is, and Mr. Lard's three reasons for opposing its 
relation before the Church. 

§2. 

Reader, let us now inquire what is a Christian experience ? 
I should define it as heing expressive of those views of him- 
self of sin, of God, and of Christ, to which the sinner 
feels himself conducted in his passage from death unto 
life, and those new affections implanted in his soul at 
conversion. 

Let us bring this definition to the test of Scripture : 



24 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

1. The first thing experienced in conversion is a 
change in one's views of himself and of sin. This is 
taught us in the parable of the prodigal, (Luke xv : 17.) 
He first " came to himself," that is, he was brought to 
place a just estimate upon his true character, and to feel 
his destitution and guilt. It is taught us in the con- 
version of Paul. Before apprehended on his way to 
Damascus, he had a very high notion of his own good- 
ness. He was, as touching the law, a Pharisee, and as 
touching the righteousness which was in the law, blame- 
less. — Phil, iii : 5, 6. But afterward he viewed himself 
as the chief of sinners. He tells Timothy he had been 
before a persecutor, a blasphemer, and an injurious per- 
son. — 1 Tim. i: 13, 15. Before, he was " alive without 
the law, but when the commandment came sin revived 
and he died." — Bom. vii : 9. It is taught us by the 
nature of conversion itself. It is a turning from dark- 
ness to light. — Acts xxvi: 18. A man in darkness sees 
not his condition. His understanding is darkened. — Eph. 
iv : 18. He walks in darkness : " He that walketh in 
darkness knoweth not whither he goeth." — John xii : 
35. In his conversion, light shines into his heart. — 2 
Cor. iv : 6. He is translated out of darkness into the 
kingdom of God's dear Son. — Col. i : 13. God calls him 
out of darkness into his marvelous light, (1 Peter ii : 9,) 
and he becomes light in the Lord. — Ephesians v : 8. 

Not only is the sinner in darkness, he is in a state 
of death — dead in trespasses and sins, hence the begin- 
ning of his conversion is called a quickening — a making 
alive. — Eph. ii : 1, 5. Now, when the soul is made 
alive — quickened — when light shines into the heart, the 
sinner sees himself as he is. He sees sin as it is. Be- 
fore, he regarded it as a trivial affair, but now he sees 
it to be exceedingly sinful. — Bom. vii : 13. He sees it 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 25 

to be the transgression of a law that is holy, just, and 
good, (Rom. vii : 12;) as committed directly against God, 
(Psalm li : 4 ;) as polluting, (Job xl : 4 ; xlii : 6 ; Isaiah 
vi : 5 ;) and as deserving divine wrath, (Ezra, ix : 13 ; 
Psalm ciii : 10.) 

2. It is from this change in the views and feelings of 
the sinner, that the inquiry, u What must I do to be 
saved ?" (Acts xvi: 30,) arises. The converts at Pente- 
cost were first pricked in the heart, and then they asked 
what they should do. — Acts ii : 37. So it is now. Un- 
til the impenitent sinner changes his views of himself 
and of sin, he will never repent — never seek after God. 
But let him come to himself, let him see sin in its true 
light, and he will arise and go to his Father ; he will 
abhor himself, and repent in dust and ashes. 

3. In conversion the sinner's views of God are 
changed. The impenitent are apt to look upon God as 
being lax in his moral government, as not being strict 
to mark iniquity, and as being indifferent toward the 
transgressions of his creatures. — Psalm x: 11; lix : 7; 
lxxiii: 11 ; xciv: 7. Hence the Almighty says: u These 
things hast thou done and I kept silence ; thou thought- 
est I was altogether such an one as thyself." — Psalm 1 : 
21. But the sinner, turning to God, entertains very 
different views. He now views God as a being that has 
no pleasure in wickedness, and with whom iniquity can 
not dwell. — Psalm v : 4. He now feels that God is justly 
angry with him, as he is with all the workers of iniquity, 
(Psalm vii : 11,) and he subscribes to the justice of the 
sentence : " The soul that sinneth, it shall die." He 
stands before his Maker a helpless, guilty, and justly 
condemned creature, and feels that he can plead nothing 
but mercy. — Luke xviii : 13 ; Daniel ix : 18. 

4. In conversion, the sinner's views of the Savior are 



26 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

greatly changed. Jesus is to the impenitent, if not an 
impostor, as a root out of dry ground, which has neither 
form nor comeliness, and as having no beauty in him 
that he should desire him. — Isaiah liii : 2. But to the 
sinner turning to God, he is the altogether lovely and 
the chief among ten thousand. — Song of Solomon v: 
10. To the former he is a " stone of stumbling and 
rock of offense/' but to the latter he is u precious/' — 1 
Peter ii : 7, 8. 

The sinner turning to God is "the sick" who need 
the physician, (Matt, ix : 12;) and Jesus, he sees, is the 
very physician he needs. How precious are the words 
of John unto him : Herein is love, not that we loved 
God, but that he loved us, and gave his Son to be the 
propitiation for our sins."— 1 John iv : 10. He feels 
that he needs a propitiation, something that will give 
satisfaction to the Divine Being against whom he has 
sinned, and he has to look out of himself for it. He 
finds it in the blood of Christ. — Romans iii: 25. Hence, 
abandoning all other grounds of dependence, his faith 
takes hold of this. He accepts of Jesus as his propitiation, 
his prophet, his priest, his king, his righteousness, his 
hope, his all. 

5. The converted sinner is conscious of the possession 
of new affections. Before, he hated God, (Rom. ii : 30 — 
compare Rom. iii: 9,) but now he loves him. — Psalm 
cxvi : 1, 2. He is emphatically a new creature. — 2 Cor. 
v: 17. He " hates his former loves and loves his former 
hates/' He casts sin away from him as odious, and as 
the worst of evils. He places the world beneath his 
feet. He knows it can not meet his wants or gratify his 
desires. All his former associations he finds to be un- 
congenial with his new nature. He now turns his face 
toward heaven. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 27 

As before remarked, the converted sinner is conscious 
that he now loves God. He loves him for what he is, 
and the center of all perfection, and the source of all 
good. And he loves him on the principle of reciprocity. 
"We love him because he first loved us/' — 1 John iv : 19. 

The converted man loves the Savior. Before, the 
name of Jesus had for him no charms, his person no 
attractions. But now he appreciates him. He sees in 
him the image of the invisible God. — Col. i: 15. Christ 
is to him God manifested in the flesh, (1 Tim. iii: 16.) 
and he loves him as such. It is on this principle that 
Jesus said to the Jews, " If God were your father you 
would love me." — John viii : 22. He who does not love 
God as seen in Christ, does not love him at all. Were 
he in heaven he would not love him. If we love that 
which is invisible, we will not hate it when made visible. 
God as seen in Christ is God as seen in heaven, and he 
who does not love him as seen in Christ, would not, 
could not love him as seen in heaven. But he loves the 
Savior, not only because he is the image of the invisible 
God, but also because " he is holy, harmless, undefiled 
and separate from sinners." — Heb. vii: 26. He loves 
because he c; spake as never man spake." — John vii : 46. 
He loves him because he died for him. — 2 Cor. v: 14, 
15. He loves him because he has graciously pardoned 
his sins. — Luke vii : 47. 

The converted sinner loves the people of God. Be- 
fore, like the rest of the world, he hated the followers 
of Jesus, (John xv : 18, 19; xvii : 14; John iii: 13;) 
but now he loves them. Great prominence is given to 
this fact, and great stress is laid upon it in the Scripture. 
Said Paul to the Thessalonians, " But as touching broth- 
erly love, ye have no need that I write unto you, for 
ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. — - 



28 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD ? S REVIEW OF 

1 Thess. iv : 9. And John says, " If any man say he 
love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar ; for he 
that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how 
can he love God whom he hath not seen?" — 1 John iv: 
20; compare 1 John ii: 9, 10; iii: 14; iv: 7, 8; v: 1. 

This love to the brethren is the effect of our love 
to Christ, just as our love to Christ is the effect of 
our love to God. Just as Jesus was the image of the 
invisible God, so are his children, but in an inferior 
sense, the image of the now invisible Jesus. And jilst 
as sure as we love God as seen in Christ, if we love 
him at all, so sure do we love Christ as seen in his 
people if we love him at all. 

Now, reader, I have given you a " picture" of what 
Baptists mean by the phrase " Christian experience/' 
It differs in nothing, material, from the one drawn by 
Mr. Jeter. I have only amplified the subject. Are you 
willing to join Mr. Lard in saying, " If we are to believe 
the subject to be part of Christianity, and to receive 
his picture of it as true — it is from it that Christianity 
suffers its chief disgrace?" Reader, is not this Chris- 
tian experience a "part of Christianity?" Is it most 
dishonoring to Christianity? If it is not a part of 
Christianity, I should like to know what it is a part 
of? And I should like to know what would be left 
of Christianity were this taken away? I should also 
like to know, if from this Christianity suffers its " chief 
disgrace," from whence does it get its chief honor ? 
Rather is not Christianity greatly dishonored, when it 
is denied the credit of enlightening the judgment, 
arousing the conscience, illumining and changing the 
heart, infusing into the soul its own spirit, painting 
God's law upon the heart, transforming the soul into 
the image of Christ, and making its recipient a new 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 29 

creature. And is all this not a matter of consciousness? 
Can any man suppose that one can have light poured 
into his understanding, his moral sensibilities quick- 
ened, his guilt impressed upon his conscience, and be 
led to repentance and to Christ and have no experience? 
Can he be so changed in heart as to love the things he 
once hated, and hate the things he once loved, love 
God, and Christ, and Christians, and yet have no expe- 
rience? Impossible. 

Reader, I will here close this section. In my next 
I shall inquire whether it is right for such an experi- 
ence as this is to be told before the Church by an appli- 
cant for baptism and membership. In the mean time 
ponder over what I have written. 



Having described " Christian experience, " I will now 
inquire if it be right and Scriptural to give a relation 
of it before the Church. The u practice *' of doing 
so has been observed among Baptists from time imme- 
morial. But Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lard tells us, has at- 
tacked it for the following reasons : 

1. It is not sanctioned by the Bible. 

2. The main point in the experience is a fiction. 

3. The practice fosters superstition. 
Let us now attend to these reasons : 

" 1. The practice is not sanctioned by the Bible. ,, 
Mr. Lard, here, begs the question. He has not made 
the first appeal to the Bible to show that it does not 
sanction the practice. He has given us unsustained 
assertion. We need more than that to make us aban- 
don the practice. I say that the practice is sanctioned 
by the Bible. Now, reader, u to the law and to the 
testimony/' and then judge between us. 



30 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

I. The Bible sanctions the telling of " Christian expe- 
rience' 1 elsewhere, arid therefore can not be opposed to the 
telling of them before the Church. 

1. Paul told his on at least two occasions — once be- 
fore his persecutors, (Acts xxii ;) and once before Agrip- 
pa, (Acts xxvi.) 

He again and again tells it in his epistles. To the 
.Romans, he says: "I had not known sin, but by the 
law : for I had not known lust, except the law had 
said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by 
the commandment, wrought in me all manner of con- 
cupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For 
I was alive without the law once : but when the com- 
mandment came, sin revived, and I died. For sin, taking 
occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it 
slew me/' — Rom. vii : 7-9, 11. Brethren, is not that 
genuine, old-fashioned, " Christian experience ? " 

Hear him again : 

"And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath en- 
abled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me 
in the ministry ; who was before a blasphemer, and a 
persecutor, and injurious : but I obtained mercy, because 
I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our 
Lord was exceeding abundant, with faith and love which 
is in Christ Jesus." — 1 Tim. i: 12-14. Here again is 
good old-fashioned " Christian experience." 

Hear him once more : 

" But what things were gain to me, those I counted 
loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things 
but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ 
Jesus my Lord : for whom I have suffered the loss of 
all things, and do count them but dung that I may win 
Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own 
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 31 

through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God 
which is by faith : that I may know him and the power 
of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, 
being made conformable unto his death." — Phil, iii : 
7-10. Here again, let me repeat, is good old-fashioned 
"Christian experience." 

2. The book of the Psalms abounds in experimental 
narrative. Take the following, specimens : 

"I waited patiently for the Lord; and he inclined 
unto me and heard my cry. He brought me up also out 
of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet 
upon a rock and established my going. And he hath 
put a new song into my mouth, even praise unto our 
God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the 
Lord." — Psalms xl : 1-3. What Christian will not 
recognize that as a good old-fashioned " Christian ex- 
perience ?" 

In another place the Psalmist says : 

" Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will de- 
clare what he hath done for my soul." — Psalm lxvi : 16. 
Now, would the Psalmist have done this if it were not 
sanctioned by the Bible ? 

II. We have, at least, one example of the telling of an 
experience before the Church, and therefore the practice 
is sanctioned by the Bible. 

In Acts ix: 26-27, we read: "And when Saul was 
come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the 
disciples ; but they were afraid of him, and believed 
not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him 
and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto 
them that he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he 
had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly 
at Damascus in the name of Jesus/' Now this ex- 



32 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

ample is decidedly in our favor. Though Paul, here, 
did not, himself, tell his experience, Barnabas did it 
for him. But this Barnabas would not have done if 
the practice were not sanctioned by the Bible. 

III. The Bible requires that the rite of baptism be ad- 
ministered only to converted persons, therefore it requires 
that candidates for the rite give evidence of their conversion; 
but this they can not do without, in some way or other, tell- 
ing their experience. 

The great law of the Master, by which we are to be 
governed in the administration of the rite of baptism, 
defines the character of those whom we are to baptize. 
They are to be the taught, i. e., discipled or converted 
persons. (See Matt, xxviii : 19. Compare Mark xvi: 
15, 16.) Now as we are to baptize converted persons, 
only, we are authorized, ay, we are required, to satisfy 
ourselves that those who demand baptism at our hands 
are converted. But we know that no one destitute 
of a " Christian experience" is converted. If he is 
converted, he has discovered the value and desirable- 
ness of the kingdom of heaven, (Matt, xiii : 44-46,) and 
parting with everything else for its sake, he has made 
it his own ; and he can tell something about it. And 
as the Master has said : " He that loveth father or 
mother more than me is not worthy of me ; and he 
that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not 
worthy of me." — Matt, x: 37. And again, "If a man 
come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and 
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and 
his own life also, he can not be my disciple." And 
again, "So likewise, whomsoever he be of you, that 
forsaketh not all that he hath, he can not be my dis- 
ciple." — Luke xiv : 26-33. I say, as the Master ha? 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 33 

said all this, he would have us use every reasonable 
precaution in admitting persons to baptism. Ke would 
not have us to baptize any in his name, and into the 
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who 
are u unworthy" of him or who " can not be his dis- 
ciples/' We have a right, therefore, to demand evi- 
dence that the candidate for baptism has renounced 
the world, and sin, and transferred his affections to 
Christ. In other words, we have a right to demand 
his experience. This, the very law under which we 
act, not only sanctions, but requires. 

IV. The Bible has invested the Church icith the right 
or authority of receiving members into their membership 
and communion, and has, thereby, made them responsible 
for the character of those whom they receive, and has, 
therefore, made it their duty to satisfy themselves that those 
who present themselves for membership are qualified for it. 
But they arc not qualified for it unless converted, there- 
fore the Bible has made it the duty of the Church to sat- 
isfy themselves, that persons who apply to them for mem- 
bership are converted. But this they can not do without 
inquiring into their " Christian experienced Therefore the 
Bible sanctions the telling of " Christian experience" before 
the Church. 

That the Bible has invested the Church with the 
right or authority of receiving persons into their mem- 
bership or communion, I presume will not be disputed. 
But lest it should be, I will prove it. Well, Acts ix : 26, 
27, proves it. Paul assayed to join himself to the dis- 
ciples, but was at first rejected. He was afterward re- 
ceived. This shows that the receiving power was in 
the hands of the disciples. Eomans xiv : 1 proves the 
same thing. u 'Hini that is weak in the faith receive ye, 
2* 



34 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

but not to doubtful disputations.' 1 This command, or 
exhortation, was addressed to the Church at Rome. It 
therefore shows that the Church had the receiving power. 

The same thing is taught us by the fact that the 
power to exclude and to restore is in the Church. (See 
1 Cor. v: 4, 5.) Here Paul enjoins the Church to ex- 
clude the incestuous member from their fellowship. 
Then in 2 Cor. ii : 6, 7, he calls upon them to restore 
him — thus recognizing both the excluding and restoring 
power as being in their hands. So he beseeches the 
Thessalonian Church to withdraw themselves from every 
brother who walked disorderly among them. That is, 
exclude him ; for to withdraw is to exclude. And he 
exhorts the Galatian Churches to restore any who might 
be overtaken in a fault in the spirit of meekness. — Gal. 
vi : 1. These passages also recognize the excluding 
and restoring power as being in the Church. Now the 
power that excludes, and afterward restores, must be the 
same power that receives to membership in the first 
place. 

Nor do I suppose that any one will dispute that the 
Church is responsible for the character of those whom 
they receive. Wherever there is authority there is re- 
sponsibility. Now I w r ould admit that the most vigilant 
and cautious may, and sometimes will, be imposed upon. 
But if, through the want of vigilance and caution, un- 
worthy persons are permitted to enter the Church, God 
will hold the Church responsible. Hear the words of 
the Savior to the Church at Pergamo, Rev. ii : 14, 15: 
" I have a few things against thee, because thou hast 
there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam. * * * 
that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes." Now how 
could the Savior have these few things against that 
Church, if they were not responsible ? And how could 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 35 

they be responsible unless the power of receiving was 
in their hands? 

V; The reasons I have given above, I deem amply 
sufficient to show that the Bible does sanction the 
'•practice in question." Let us now inquire what do 
the Campbellites oppose to all this? Well, they oppose 
the example of Philip and the eunuch, Acts viii : 37 : 
" And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart 
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Now here, they 
say, the eunuch confessed his faith; he did not tell his 
experience. Now I have always thought that this ob- 
jection comes with an ill grace from the Campbellites, 
for the reason that Mr. Campbell, their leader, has pro- 
nounced this thirty -seventh verse of the eighth chapter of 
the Acts, "spurious" and as such, has left it out of his 
(t Living Oracles ! " I have always wondered how 
Campbellites could have the effrontery to urge this ex- 
ample upon us, in view of the above fact. And I have 
also wondered how their conscience could be at ease 
in making that an invariable law of action in admit- 
ting persons to an ordinance of Jesus Christ, which, 
they say, is an interpolation — a spurious reading — and 
which as such has been rejected and expunged!! And 
I wish it ever to be remembered that Mr. Campbell 
has pronounced this thirty-seventh verse of the eighth 
of Acts an interpolation, has torn it out of the text 
and thrown it away, and that his followers have picked 
it up and built their Church upon it! According to 
their own showing they obey a law which is a corrup- 
tion and follow an example which is spurious ! 

But, while it is not allowable, for the above reason, 
that a Campbellite should oppose the example of the 



36 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

eunuch to our "practice," I am willing to recognize 
Acts viii : 37 as a part of the word of God. But 
while I recognize it as a part of the word of God, it 
is only a part, and has no precedence over any other 
part. What precedence, pray, has Acts viii: 37 over 
Acts x: 47? Here Peter claimed the right of Corne- 
lius and his friends to baptism, not on the ground of 
saying they believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of 
God, but on the ground of their having received the 
Holy Ghost. The truth is, no one example can claim 
precedence over any and every other. Each example 
is equally authoritative, and the whole, and not a part, 
should be taken as our guide. 

Still, I have this to say about the case of the eunuch : I 
consider that it has now no parallel. I do not consider 
that he was an unregenerated, unconverted sinner, when 
Philip joined his chariot. I believe he was a pious 
proselyte of the Jewish religion ; a believer in, and an 
expectant of the Messiah ; but at that time ignorant of 
the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. 
Hence, all he needed, was information on the subject; 
and that was what Philip gave him. He asked no 
such question, as, What shall I do to be saved? He 
manifested no concern such as penitents exhibit. The 
first thing that escaped his lips was, u See, here is water ; 
what doth hinder me from being baptized?" Now, as 
Philip had seen nothing like conviction or penitence 
in the eunuch, it was natural for him to answer: " If 
thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." And 
it was equally natural for the eunuch to reply : " I 
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." My 
opinion is, that the eunuch was in spirit, when Philip 
joined his chariot, what Nathaniel was, when Philip, 
the apostle, invited him to "come and see" if any good 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 37 

thing could come out of Nazareth — " an Israelite indeed 
in whom there is no guile/' — John i: 49. And hence, 
just as Nathaniel, when sufficient evidence was given 
him that Jesus was the Messiah, exclaimed : " Rabbi, 
thou art the Son of (xod, thou art the King of Israel ;" 
so the Eunuch yielded to sufficient testimony, and said : 
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God/' But 
he, no more than Nathaniel, was at that time converted. 
He had experienced conversion before. If we want a 
parallel case to those which occur nowadays, we must 
go to Acts ii : 38 ; or Acts viii : 12 ; or Acts xvi : 14, 
15, or verses 30-33 ; or Acts xviii : 8, 9. In all these 
instances, the apostles, or ministers, who administered 
the rite of baptism, were eye-witnesses of the conversion 
of the parties baptized ; and I have no doubt, proceeded 
to baptize the converts upon the testimony of conversion 
thus obtained. And I, therefore, feel fully authorized 
to say, the example of the eunuch can not be forced 
upon us as the rule of action. 

§4. 

The second reason assigned by Mr. Lard, to justify 
Mr. Campbell's " attack " upon our practice, is this : 
" The main point in the experience is a fiction/' And 
he tells us that "main point " is the "sense of forgive- 
ness alleged to be felt by the party at the moment when 
his sins are supposed to be remitted/' 

The reader has had laid before him already* all that 
Mr. Lard has said in support of this second reason. I 
need not, therefore, requote it here. It is plain that 
Mr. Lard believes that there is no such thing as a "sense 
of forgiveness/' He does not believe that any " feel- 

* In 3 1. 



38 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

ing " or " impression " can prove the remission of sins. 
He does not believe that the question of pardon is to be 
determined by any feeling or impression that the sinner 
may possess. Then the question arises by what it is to 
be determined? Mr. Lard has not told us here; but I 
gather from another part of his book, that he thinks 
baptism is what determines it. Let me give you his 
words : 

" There are two kingdoms on earth in which men 
exist — the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. 
These two kingdoms are separated from each other by 
one and the same line. All on this side are saints, all 
on that sinners; and all are on that side until born of 
water and of the Spirit; then all thus born are on this. 
We can no more conceive of a saint in the kingdom of 
Satan, than we can of a sinner in the kingdom of God; 
nor can we any more conceive of a saint without his 
being born of water and of the Spirit, than we can of a 
sinner who is. The instant in which a man's sins are 
forgiven, he passes from the kingdom of Satan into the 
kingdom of God. But he passes from the kingdom of 
Satan into the kingdom of God, the instant in which 
he is born of water and of the Spirit. Hence, in that 
instant, his sins are forgiven. * * * From all of 
which we conclude that a man's sins are remitted the 
instant in which he is born of water and of the Spirit; 
or, inverting the expressions, the instant in which, being 
begotten of the Spirit, he is immersed." * 

Now compare with the above the following: "Feelings 
may exist, but they prove not remission ; impressions 
may be made, but they teach not forgiveness. In most 
instances we may hope the unfortunate victims of this 

-Review, pp. 231, 232. 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 39 

delusion to be sincere,'" and then tell me what you think. 
Is it not plain that Mr. Lard discards feeling and makes 
baptism the evidence of pardon. A man is to determine 
his gracious state not by what he feels, but by what he 
does. 

Now, here I join issue with Mr. Lard. And I want 
to say to the reader, this issue is one of paramount im- 
portance. Will he give me his serious and candid 
attention while I discuss it? 

I shall not now undertake to show whether sins are 
remitted before, or in, or after baptism. I undertake to 
show that the question of pardon is to be determined by 
our feelings, not by baptism. 

I. My first argument is : 

Motive gives character to action. No act of obedience 
can be acceptable to God unless it proceeds from a proper 
motive. The true and only acceptable motive of obedience 
to God, is love. If therefore, I would know whether I 
am accepted in my act of obedience, I must know that I 
am governed by the proper motive. But this I can not 
know but by consulting my feelings — my consciousness. 

We know that the human heart is susceptible of being 
governed by more motives than one, and we know that 
motive gives character to action. We know also that 
acceptable actions are such as proceed from proper mo- 
tives. Now, though God may have enjoined a duty and 
annexed a promise to it, I can not claim the promise 
simply because I have performed the duty. I must per- 
form it from a proper motive. But how can I know that 
I have done so, only as I consult my consciousness? 

Let me illustrate. Jesus says : "Ask, and it shall be 
given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it shal] 
be opened unto you. For every one that asketh, re* 



40 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

ceiveth," etc. — Luke xi : 9, 10. Now, suppose I ask, oi 
seek, or knock — do the duties here enjoined — but my 
motive is not right, will I be heard? Our Savior says: 
"Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a 
Pharisee and the other a Publican/' — Luke xviii: 10-14. 
They both went to pray, and they both prayed. They 
performed the same act. Now, why were not both 
accepted? Why is it that only one of them went down 
to his house justified? You know it was because only- 
one of them was governed by the right motive. 

Again, John vi : 26. Here we find persons seeking 
Jesus. Well, is not that right? Does not the prophet 
say: "Seek the Lord while he may be found?" And 
does not the Psalmist say: "They that seek the Lord 
shall not want any good thing?" And, again : "Your 
heart shall live that seek God?" Yes, they say all that. 
But they do not say we are to seek him because we eat 
of the loaves and fishes. We must seek him with the 
whole heart. The motive must be right. Now, just as 
two men may pray, and only one of them be heard, or 
two men seek the Lord, and only one of them find him, 
because only one of them is prompted by the right 
motive, so two men might be baptized, and, if baptism 
had the promise of pardon annexed, (which it has not,) 
only one of them might be accepted and blessed in the 
act, because the motive of only one of them might be 
right. Therefore, the individual baptized could not 
determine the fact of his pardon merely from the fact of 
his baptism ; for this would ignore the motive. In that 
case baptism would afford the same testimony to the 
hypocrite it would to the sincere penitent. The fact of 
pardon, then, after all, would have to be determined by 
an appeal to the feelings. 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 41 

II. My second argument is : 

In no instance does the Bible refer any one to the fact 
of his baptism as the proof of the forgiveness of his sins, 
or of his acceptance with God. 

The Bible lays down two test standards, by which the 
religious professions of individuals are to be tried. One 
is for the trial of others ; the other is for the trial of 
one's own self. In Matt, vii : 16, 20, the Savior says : 
"Ye shall know them by their fruits." Know them? 
Yes; for we easily look at the " outward appearance." 
God only can see the heart. My brother's "fruits" are 
all that I can see, and they, therefore, form the only 
standard by which I can judge him. The second stand- 
ard, or the one by which I am to judge myself, is : 
"Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove 
your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how 
that Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" — 2 Cor, 
xiii : 5, 6. Now, here you see that, in judging my 
brother, I must look at his fruits. Not merely his bap- 
tism, but his general course in life; but in judging 
myself I must turn my eyes icithin. If I am "in the 
faith," "Christ is in me." I am not, then, to "know" 
that I " am in the faith," by the simple fact of my 
baptism, but by having Christ in me. Had I been bap- 
tized a thousand times, it would prove nothing. The 
question would still turn upon this: is Christ in me? 
Baptism, then, is no part of this test standard. 

But, perhaps one is ready to say: "How am I to 
know that Christ is in me?" Paul will tell you in 
Romans viii: 9, 10: "But ye are not in the flesh, but 
in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in 
you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the bod J 
is dead because of sin ; but the spirit is life because of 



42 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

righteousness." Now, here you see that you are to de- 
termine whether Christ is in you by two facts, namely: 

1. Your " body is dead because of sin." 

2. Your " spirit is life because of righteousness." 
And is not this a matter of consciousness? Can you 

not tell whether the motions of sin are still alive in you 
and working in your members to bring forth fruit unto 
death? (Rom. vii: 5,) or whether the motions of the 
Spirit are there working in you to will and to do of 
God's good pleasure ? 

III. My third argument is : 

Love to God and to his people is made the test, in the 
Bible, ichethcr ice are in a state of life — of pardon — or not. 

In Luke vii: 36-48, we read: "And one of the 
Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. 
And he went into the Pharisee's house and sat down to 
meat. And behold, a woman in the city, which was a 
sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the 
Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, 
and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began 
to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the 
hairs of her head, and kissed his feet and anointed 
them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which 
had bidden him, saw it, he spake within himself, saying, 
This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who, 
and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him : 
for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering, said unto 
him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And 
he saith, Master, say on. There was a certain creditor, 
which had two debtors : the one owed five hundred 
pence, and the other fifty. And when they had noth- 
ing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me, 
therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 43 

answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he for 
gave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly 
judged. And he turned to the woman, and said unto 
Simon, Seest thou this woman ? I entered into thine 
house, thou gavest me no water for my feet : but she 
hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with 
the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss : but 
this woman, since the time I came in, hath not ceased 
to kiss my feet. Mine head with oil thou didst not 
anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with 
ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which 
are many, are forgiven ; for she loved much." 

Here, the proof of this woman's pardon is found in 
" she loved much." And this, by the way, is the 
" sense of forgiveness." Forgiveness is here specified 
as the cause, and love as the effect. And the existence 
of a cause can be known by the existence of its effect. 

But one may object and say: "Forgiveness is a ju- 
dicial transaction. It is a work done for a man and 
not in him, and hence can not be felt. It is, therefore, 
to be determined by an outward and not an inward testi- 
mony/' I answer, though forgiveness is a judicial 
transaction, still it is competent for the Savior, who has 
" power on earth to forgive sins," to make feeling the 
proof of its having been done. And the question, 
whether he has done so, is to be decided by his own 
word. Well, in the above passage, he has done it. 
" He who has had much forgiven, will love much," is 
his own decision. 

This view of the subject is strengthened by the dec- 
laration : " He that believeth on the Son of G-od, hath 
the witness in himself 11 (1 John v: 10,) and by the pro- 
visions of the new covenant, of which Jesus is the 
mediator. — Hebrews viii. Compare Jeremiah xxxi : 31, 



44 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

33. It specifies two things which God does for tho 
members of it, namely : 

1. " I will put my laws into their minds, and write 
them in their hearts." 

2. " I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and 
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more/' 

Now, note, the first of these works is internal, and 
therefore proves the existence of the other ; for they 
always go together. God never writes his law in the 
heart of any one whose sins he does not pardon. And 
" vice versa," he never pardons the sins of any one in 
whose heart he does not write his law. He never does 
any half-finished work. Now, writing God's law in the 
heart is a matter of consciousness. For what else can it 
be than having the " love of God shed abroad in the 
heart by the Holy Ghost?" — Romans v: 5. This secures 
the fulfilling of the law in us, (Romans viii: 4,) for love 
is the fulfilling of the law, (Rom. xiii: 10.) 

Again, in John v: 24, Jesus says: " Verily, verily, I 
say unto you, He that heareth my word and believeth on 
him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come 
into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life." 
Now, here the Savior shows that one who has "passed 
from death unto life," has passed out of a state of con- 
demnation into a state of justification. He is, therefore, 
pardoned. Well, what is the proof that one has passed 
from death unto life? Baptism? No! Love to the 
brethren, " We know that we have passed from death 
unto life, because we love the brethren." — 1 John iii : 
14. If we can know that we have passed from death 
unto life because we love the brethren, we can know that 
we are pardoned, because we love the brethren ; for no 
one has passed from death unto life who is not pardoned. 

The x\postle John lays great stress upon love to the 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 45 

brethren. He makes it the test. Let me quote several 
passages from his first epistle: "He that saith he is 
in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness 
even until now. He that loveth his brother, abideth 
in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling 
in him. But he that hateth his brother is in dark- 
ness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither 
he goeth; because that darkness hath blinded his eyes." 
— Ch. ii: 9, 10, 11. " He that loveth not his brother 
abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a 
murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal 
life abiding in him." — Ch. iii : 14, 15. " Beloved, let 
us love one another : for love is of God ; and every 
one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 
He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. 
If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his 
love is perfected in us. If a man say, I love God, 
and hateth his brother, he is a liar. For he that loveth 
not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love 
God, whom he hath not seen?"' — Ch. iv: 7, 8, 20. 

Now, let the reader here look on this side, and on 
that side of the picture John has here drawn : 

1. What does he say of him who does not love his 
brother? Why, "he is in darkness." " He walketh 
in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth." "He 
abideth in death." "He is a murderer." "He is a 
liar." " He can not love God." 

2. What does he say of him who loves his brother? 
Why, "he abides in the light." "Has passed from 
death unto life." "Is born of God." "Knows God." 
" Loves him." 

Now, which of these characters will Mr. Lard baptize? 
The former? And can he hope that baptism would 
insure such a one of pardon? I will not indulge the 



46 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

thought that Mr. Lard could or would answer in the 
affirmative. What ! Baptism insure pardon to a man 
walking in darkness, a hater of God, a liar, a murderer ! 
Blasphemy ! ! 

But mark it, Mr. Lard must baptize such a man, if 
he baptize a man who has no "sense of forgiveness.''' 
For if he defers the baptism until the man " loves the 
brethren," he defers it until the man is born of God, 
loves God, is in the light, and has passed from death unto 
life. Then he must defer it until the man has " a sense 
of forgiveness." 

And now, be it remembered, that the "sense of for- 
giveness" which we wish to "elicit" is nothing more or 
less than that the convert has a consciousness of love to 
God and to his people. The possession of this insures 
the possession of everything attendant upon and char- 
acteristic of conversion. And it is impossible for us to 
conceive, how any man who knows anything about it, 
could possibly call it a "fiction" or a "farce." Color 
is a reality, though the blind can not see it. Sound 
is a reality, though the deaf can not hear it. So this 
" sense of forgiveness" is a reality, though the wicked 
do not feel it. And, adopting the language of Mr. 
Lard, may I say, " No good man of strong mind and 
unwilling to be deceived, ever yet" read or heard read 
what Mr. Lard has here written " without feeling him- 
self deeply moved, when" he came to the word "farce." 
And " it is difficult to say which is the greater, the pity 
of such a man for the deluded creature," who swallows 
down, like an unsuspecting young bird, what Mr. Lard 
has here written, " or his disgust for the blind guide 
who conducts the process of" leading him " into every 
imaginable" intricacy "that is false/' 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 47 

§ 5 - 

The third reason assigned by Mr. Lard, why Mr 
Campbell opposed the practice of relating a u Christian 
experience" before the Church is, "The practice fosters 
superstition." 

Mr. Lard adds, "Of the truth of this there is no 
more unmistakable evidence than the chary concessions 
of Mr. Jeter. That dreams, visions, sounds, voices, 
and specters, were formerly, as they are still, common 
elements in the experience related, does not admit of 
being denied. These things were related in public in 
the presence of large audiences. Many hearing them 
believed them real. Hence, in ' seeking religion' these 
persons were naturally led to look for the same marvel- 
ous things which others had seen. With their super- 
stitious feelings thus highly excited, how easy for them 
to persuade themselves that they had seen or heard 
what had either no foundation at all, or none beyond 
their fancy ! Hence, if the father had heard a sound, 
nothing but a sound would satisfy the son ; if the mother 
had dreamed a dream, the daughter was a dreamer too; 
and thus the weaknesses of the parents became the weak- 
nesses of their children, and the superstition of one 
generation the superstition of the next/' 

Reader, what do you think of that? Do you not 
think that that is enough to shame or scare us out of 
the practice of having candidates for baptism and mem- 
bership tell their " Christian experience" before the 
Church? It might have some effect were it not for one 
thing, namely, it is a gross misrepresentation. We do 
not have converts to tell experiences of which " dreams, 
visions, sounds, voices, and specters/' are " common 
elements." This every Baptist Church on the face of 
this broad earth knows. 



48 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

But how about the " chary concessions of Mr. Jeter V* 
Well, reader, turn to the sixty-first page of " Campbell- 
ism Examined" and you will see. " He (Mr. Campbell) 
exposed with clearness and severity the illusions and 
extravagances which, among the uncultivated and igno- 
rant, especially the negroes, w T as current as Christian 
experience. These evils were seen and deplored, and 
opposed by all well-informed Christians, long before he 
commenced his reformation." 

Now, reader, is there anything in this " concession " 
that proves Mr. Lard's charge? You know there is not. 
Mr. Jeter concedes, what? That " dreams, visions, sounds, 
voices, and specters" are "common elements" in the ex- 
periences related, as Mr. Lard charges? No, sir! no, 
sir ! ! And yet, every Baptist knows, that Mr. Jeter 
has conceded as much as candor and truth require. And 
had Mr. Lard exercised as much candor and ingenuous- 
ness in his use of Mr. Jeter's " concession " he never 
would have penned the paragraph above quoted. 

I would here say, the practice does not " foster super- 
stition." And " there is no more unmistakable evi- 
dence" to prove that it does not, than these gross 
misrepresentations of Mr. Lard. No man resorts to 
misrepresentation to sustain a charge, if it is sustain- 
able by direct proof. Mr. Lard charges that the " prac- 
tice" of relating a "Christian experience before the 
Church," "fosters superstition." And then attempts to 
prove it, by what? Why, by telling us what we all 
know to be false, namely, that " dreams, visions, sounds, 
voices, and specters" were "related in public in the pres- 
ence of large audiences," as " common elements in the 
experiences." 

Until Mr. Lard (or some other " graduate of Beth- 
any College") shall sustain this "third reason," by 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 49 

something like proof, I am content simply to deny. 
The burden of proof lies upon him. His bare assertion 
will not suffice, especially when it rests upon misrepre- 
sentation as its basis. 

But now why all this opposition to the relation of a 
" Christian experience" before the Church? I have 
shown that the practice is sanctioned by the Bible. T 
have also shown that the " main point in experience" is 
not a " fiction." And I have shown by consequence 
that the " practice" does not "foster superstition;" for 
no practice sanctioned by the Bible can foster supersti- 
tion. And it can not foster superstition to relate before 
the Church what we have felt of those transforming in- 
fluences which brought us from darkness to light and 
from the power of Satan unto God, and thus fitted us 
for the Divine ordinances and membership in the family 
of God. 

Then why this opposition? " Is there not a cause?" 
Yes. The cause is found in the fact that Campbellism 
is powerless to the production of a " Christian experience!" 
It has all, before baptism, in the kingdom of Satan, and 
in an unpardoned, unsaved, and condemned state ! It 
teaches that all the moral fitness required on the part 
of the sinner for baptism is that he believes that " Jesus 
the Nazarene is the Messiah."* Now every truly con- 
verted person who comes before fhe Church and gives 
a " reason of the hope that is in him with meekness 
and fear/' (1 Peter iii : 15,) is a living witness against 
Campbellism. He has the testimony within him — " in 
the inner man" — that Campbellism is false. And "from 
the abundance of his heart his mouth speaks," and 
Campbellism feels it. And, like Ahab by the prophet 

* Christianity Restored, p. 119. 



50 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Micaiah, it says, " I hate him ; for lie doth not prophesy 
good concerning me, but evil." 

I do not wonder that Campbellites have no one to tell 
a " Christian experience'' before the Church. He who 
has nothing to tell should tell nothing. And I do not 
wonder at their opposition to us, on that score. And 
the only feeling which that opposition should produce 
in our hearts is that of pity; and, like our Divine Mas- 
ter when on the cross, we should pray, " Father, forgive 
them, for they know not what they do." 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 51 



CHAPTER II. 

THE DUTY OF THE UNBAPTIZED TO PRAY. 

§ !• 

WHAT Mr. Lard says on this subject may be found 
on pages 172 and 180, inclusive, of his book. I 
will make a long quotation, so that the reader may have 
plainly before him the Campbellite position on this sub- 
ject. 

"We assert now, as we have ever done, that there is 
not one passage in the Bible which, during the reign 
of Christ, makes it the duty of an unbaptized person to 
pray. Mr. Jeter is greatly mistaken if he supposes that 
we cherish not this as a capital item. We do not say 
the sinner may not pray ; and when he does pray, we 
do not say that it is wrong. Let us be understood. 
We do say, with singular emphasis, that it is not the 
duty of the sinner, the unbaptized, to pray for the re- 
mission of his sins; that it is not made his duty to do 
so by the Bible — not even by implication. It is against 
this practice, or rather fiction, this objection is especially 
pointed. 

" The sinner is taught by orthodox preachers — blind 
guides in this case, certainly — to pray for the remission 
of his sins; nay more, that God will give him & feeling 
sense of remission when it occurs. Accordingly, with 
a broken heart and a subdued spirit, day after day, 
week after week, and often year after year, in blind — ■ 
but, it is to be hoped, innocent — neglect of his real 



52 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

duties, lie repeats the same fruitless prayer. And pray 
he may ; but, unless the Savior contravene the laws of 
his kingdom, to accept, in a moment of awful extremity, 
the will for the deed of the sincere, but deluded sinner, 
into the presence of the Lord he may come, but it will 
not be, we have many a fear, to remain. The sinner's 
agony of mind and soul during this time, though it may 
stop short of lunacy or suicide, as fortunately in most 
cases it does, is always most intense and bitter. The 
wail we have heard from his heart, his indescribable look 
of despair, his shriek and smothered groan, strangely 
mingling with the flippant, and in many instances, ir- 
reverent cant of the preacher, i Pray on, brother; the 
Lord will have mercy on your soul,' have never failed, 
while they have pierced us with inexpressible grief, to 
create in our mind the most painful apprehensions as to 
the fate of those who cherish and teach the doctrine. 
Of all the gross and fatal delusions of Protestants, there 
are few we can deem worse than this. It is a shame 
to the Baptist denomination — of which we can truly 
say, 'With all thy faults we love thee still,' — that it 
should hold and teach this error. Were the sinner, in 
a moment of deep distress, to pray the Lord to forgive 
his sins, we could not find in our heart to chide him for 
the deed ; but we should certainly endeavor to teach him 
the way of the Lord more perfectly. But one thing we 
should never do : teach him what the Bible does not 
teach him — to expect the remission of his sins merely 
because he prayed for it. Why pray for a blessing 
which our heavenly Father has never promised to confer 
in this way or for this reason, but which he certainly 
does confer in another way and for a different reason? 
Where is the advantage of the prayer unless the Lord 
has promised to heed it?" 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 53 

That is a singular paragraph. The mind of its author 
must have been confused when he wrote it. It is con- 
tradictious. Mr. Lard will not say " the sinner may 
not pray, and when he does pray he will not say it is 
wrong/' and yet he offers a prayer which the Savior can 
not answer without contravening the laws of his king- 
dom! Mr. Lard can call the "practice" a "fiction" 
and yet he will not say the sinner may not do it, nor 
that it is wrong ! Now, it is either icrong or right. But 
if it is a " fiction," it is not right. If it requires a con- 
travention of the laws of the Savior's kingdom, it is not 
right. This Mr. Lard must know. 

I should like to know how r Mr. Lard could feel him- 
self authorized to call those who teach the sinner to 
pray u blind guides" if he will not say the sinner may 
not do it? Or that when he does it he does wrong? 
If the blind lead the blind will not both fall into the 
ditch ? 

Again, I should like to know how Mr. Lard can jus- 
tify himself in saying there are few of the " gross and 
fatal delusions of Protestants " he can "deem worse than 
this/' and yet refuse to say the sinner may not pray, or 
that he does wrong in doing so. How can he say that it 
is a l: shame to the Baptist denomination that it should 
hold and teach this error," and yet refuse to say it is 
wrong for the sinner to pray? If the sinner, in a mo- 
ment of deep distress, prays the Lord to forgive his sins, 
Mr. Lard will not "chide him for the deed ;" but he will 
call us " blind guides for teaching the ' deed/ " He 
will call it one of the gross and fatal delusions of Prot- 
estants, and yet, after all, it may be right ! It is a shame 
to the Baptist denomination, and yet, after all, the sinner 
may do it without being pronounced wrong, or being 
chided for the deed ! ! 



54 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Eeader, let us leave Mr. Lard to reconcile these con- 
tradictory statements as best he can, and proceed to 
notice the issue here made between the Baptists and the 
Campbellites. Mr. Lard, speaking in the name of his 
entire denomination, and under the eye of Mr. Campbell, 



" We assert now, as we have ever done, that there is not 
one passage in the Bible, which, during the reign of Christ, 
makes it the duty of an wibaptized person to pray." 

Here we join issue. In reasoning upon this subject 
I shall proceed in a synthetic manner. And, if I am 
not greatly mistaken, I shall reach my conclusion with 
a conclusiveness of argument and proof that will defy 
assault. Reader, let us proceed. 

I. My first argument is : 

Prayer is a moral duty, and, like love to God, binding 
upon every rational human being, and therefore has not 
been, and can not be, limited by the rite of baptism. 

Now let me amplify and sustain this argument : 

1. Prayer is a moral duty. Let me explain the mean- 
ing of the word moral as here used. Jonathan Edwards 
says : " Those laws (laws are only another name for 
duties) whose obligation arises from the nature of 
things, and from the general state and nature of man- 
kind, as from God's positive revealed will, are called 
moral laws." 

Bishop Butler says : " Moral precepts are precepts, 
the reason of which we see. * * * Moral duties 
arise out of the nature of the case itself." 

Dr. Fiddes says: u The subject-matter of a moral law 
is * * * something antecedently, in the visible 
reason of it, obligatory to us, and the obligation thereof 
will always continue unchangeably the same. 1 ' 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 55 

His definition of moral duties will not be gainsayed. 
Well, does not prayer come under this definition ? Does 
not its obligation " arise from the nature of things," and 
from the general state and nature of mankind ? Can we 
not see the reason of the duty? Does it not arise out 
of God's relation to us, and our dependence upon him? 

There are three great laws promulgated in both the 
Old and New Testaments, which have an equal claim to 
the epithet moral, namely: 

1st. " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and 
with all thy strength." — Deut. vi: 5; Mark xii: 30. 

2d. " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself/' — Lev. 
xix : 18; Mark xii: 31. 

3d. " Thou shalt worship the Lord, thy God, and him 
only shalt thou serve." — Deut. vi : 13; x: 20; Matt, 
iv: 10. 

Now, is not the last of these three laws, as well as 
the first two, a moral law ? Can we give a reason why 
we should love God, that will not equally apply to the 
worship of God ? If one should ask why he should love 
God, we would think it a sufficient answer: " Because 
he is God and you are his creature." So, if one should 
ask: "Why should I worship the Lord?" our answer 
would be : " Because he is the Lord, your God." Every 
relation gives rise to a corresponding obligation. "A 
son honoreth his father, and a servant his master : if I 
be a father, where is mine honor? and if I be a master, 
where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts." — Mai. i : 6. 
And so we might ask here : " If he be the Lord, our 
God, where is his worship ?" It can not be denied, 
then, that every rational human being should worship 
the Lord, his God. 

Well, prayer is an essential part of Divine worship. 



56 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

No man can worship the Lord without praying to him. 
There is, there can be no worship paid by man to his 
Maker without prayer. The man who does not pray 
does not worship." 

Again, he who prays at all must pray for the remis- 
sion of his sins. Our Savior has taught us to pray : 
" Forgive us our sins, as we forgive every one who is 
indebted to us." — Luke xi : 4. If man worship God at 
all, he must worship him as a sinner. In every act of 
worship he must recognize that fact. It would be an 
insult to the Almighty for a sinner to come into his 
presence and make no mention of his sins, and ask for 
no pardon. This is taught us by the example of Cain. 
He brought of the u fruit of the ground an offering unto 
the Lord/' There was no recognition of the "promised 
seed/' No recognition of the great truth : " Without 
the shedding of blood there is no remission." No ac- 
knowledgment of his own guilt. No faith. God spurned 
him and his offering. The fact is ; we are sinners, and 
we must recognize that fact in all our approaches to God. 
We must approach him through the Mediator. We 
must come with contrition in our hearts, and confessions 
and supplications for pardon in our mouths. (See Psalm 
xxxii : 5; Neh. i: G; 1 John i: 9; Neh. ix : 3 ; Prov. 
xxviii : 13; Dan. ix : 20.) 

2. Prayer, being a moral duty, has not been, and 
can not be limited by the rite of baptism. Baptism is 
a positive rite. A positive duty can not, in the nature of 
things, set aside or limit moral obligations. Positive 
law creates a new duty; it can not set aside an old one. 
A positive law can be abrogated, and the duty it enjoins 
set aside, but it can interfere with no existing law, 
especially with no existing moral law. Now, as prayer 
is a moral duty, resting on its own broad foundation 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 57 

of the Divine relationship to us, baptism can not inter- 
fere with it. 

How such a thought as this, that a person must be 
baptized before it is his duty to pray, ever entered into 
Mr. Lard's head, I can not imagine. Why, it is to 
place baptism into antagonism with the moral claims of 
God. It is to make every unbaptized person a practical 
atheist, and to justify him in his atheism. He lives as 
if there was no God ! The thought is preposterous. 

II. My second argument is : 

Prayer is a duty binding upon all rational human be- 
ings, because the Bible condemns those icho do not pray. 

That the Bible condemns those who do not pray, the 
following passages prove, Job xxi : 7 : " Wherefore do 
the wicked live, become old, etc. * * * They say 
unto God, Depart from us ; for we desire not the knowl- 
edge of thy ways. What is the Almighty that we should 
serve him, and what profit should we have if we pray 
unto him ? ''' Here these persons are called icicked, and 
one proof of their wickedness is their contemning prayer 
to God. The Psalmist says : " The wicked through the 
pride of his countenance will not seek after God. God 
is not in all his thoughts." Again : " Have all the 
workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people 
as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord?" — Psalm 
xiv : 6. See also Psalm liii : 4. 

In Psalm lxxix: 7, the Psalmist prays: "Pour out thy 
wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and 
upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.'' 
Now, was not this prayer dictated by the Holy Ghost? 
Then were not the kingdoms guilty in not calling upon 
God? 

Jer. x: 25 : " Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that 
3* 



58 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thg 
name." Jeremiah never would have offered such a peti- 
tion as this, had he not regarded this not calling upon 
God's name as a sin. 

One more, Dan. ix: 13 : " Yet made we not our prayer 
before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our 
iniquities and understand thy truth." 

Now, all these passages clearly show that a neglect of 
prayer is a sin. Then prayer is a duty, otherwise a neg- 
lect of it would not be a sin. For sin is not imputed 
when there is no law. — Rom. v : 13. For where no law 
is there is no transgression. — Rom. iv : 15. But perhaps 
one may call for a passage from the New Testament mak- 
ing a neglect of prayer a sin. Well, here it is : " For 
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all 
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the 
truth in unrighteousness ; because that which may be 
known of God is manifest in them ; for God hath showed 
it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the 
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood 
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and 
Godhead; so that they are without excuse; because 
that when they knew God they glorified him not as God, 
neither were thankful ; but became vain in their imagi- 
nations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Profess- 
ing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and 
changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an 
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and 
four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore 
God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts 
of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies be- 
tween themselves : who changed the truth of God into 
a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than 
the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 59 

cause God gave them up unto vile affections," etc.— 
Rom. i: 18-26. 

Now, to what truth as held in unrighteousness, does 
the apostle allude to here,, but the truth concerning the 
being of God ? And what is it to hold this truth in 
unrighteousness, except, when one knows God, to glorify 
him not as God, and to be thankful? And for what 
cause did God give them up to vile affections, but for 
that of changing the truth of God into a lie, and wor- 
shiping and serving the creature more than the Crea- 
tor? Well, we know that no man can glorify God as 
God, who does not pray to him. And does not this 
charge of worshiping and serving the creature more 
than the Creator, imply that the Creator should be wor- 
shiped and served by those of whom the apostle here 
complains? Yes, the entire passage shows that it is the 
duty of all who know God to glorify him, and worship 
him. 

Now, can all the above be true, and yet it also be 
true that it is not the duty of an unbaptized person to 
pray? If an unbaptized person should not pray, then 
an unbaptized person who knows God may refuse to 
glorify him as God, in this respect, and still commit no 
sin. But unbaptized persons, and all others who know 
God, and yet do not worship and serve him, commit 
sin ; therefore it is the duty of unbaptized persons to 
worship God. 

III. My third argument is : 

The uniform teachings of the New Testament on the 
duty of prayer ) show that no change has taken place with 
regard to the extent of its obligations. Not the least hint 
is given that it is circumscribed by baptism. 

Now, an examination of all the lessons that the Savior 



00 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

and his apostles have given us on this subject, will 
demonstrate this argument. I will give book, chapter, 
and verse, where these lessons are to be found, and let 
the reader examine for himself. 

The first lesson is found in Matt, vi : 5-13, inclusive. 
Reader, get your New Testament and turn to the place. 
Well, you see the Savior begins by saying: "When thou 
prayest," etc. He gives no injunction ; he simply gives 
directions. He talks about prayer just as he does about 
almsgiving and fasting. He simply tells us how we are 
to give alms, how we are to fast, and how we are to 
pray. There is not the remotest allusion to baptism. 
And we have no more authority for saying the unbap- 
tized should not pray, or that it is not their duty to 
pray, than we have for saying it is not their duty to 
give alms or fast. 

Our second lesson is in Matt, vii : 7-11, inclusive. 
Christ simply says: "Ask, and it shall be given you; 
seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened 
unto you,"' etc.; but gives no hint about baptism. But 
note one thing : these two passages are a part of our 
Lord's Sermon on the Mount; a part of his "sayings/* 
therefore, to which he alludes in Matt, vii : 24-27. 
" Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, 
and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man, who 
built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended, 
and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon 
that house ; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a 
rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, 
and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, 
which built his house upon the sand. And the rain de- 
scended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and 
beat upon that house ; and it fell, and great was the 
fall of it." Now, is not this true of unbaptized as well 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 61 

as baptized persons? Will Mr. Lard say, will any one 
else say, that it is not the duty of unbaptized persons to 
keep these " sayings " of Christ? Will he say that an 
unbaptized person may not keep these sayings and yet 
not be like the "foolish man?" He must say it or 
abandon his position. But I scarcely think he will 
have the temerity to say it. 

The third lesson is found in Luke xi: 1-13, inclusive. 
Here the Savior simply reiterates the instruction given 
in the two preceding lessons, with the addition of a les- 
son on importunity. Still, there is not one word about 
baptism. 

The fourth lesson is found in Luke xviii : 1-8, inclu- 
sive. Still not one word about baptism. This fact is 
very significant, when we remember that the parable here 
recorded was spoken for the express purpose to teach 
that "men ought always to pray and not to faint." 
Had the Savior intended that during his reign prayer 
should be the duty of none but the baptized, here was 
the place for him to have said so. Oh if it had only 
been said " He spoke a parable to this end, that bap- 
tized men ought always to pray and not to faint ! " But 
he did not say so, and Mr. Lard's position must, as yet, 
go without proof. 

Mr. Lard asks concerning this parable : " Now, will 
this language apply to sinners?" Why did he not ask, 
Will it apply to unbaptized persons? But he continues : 
"Are they (sinners) God's oxen elect who cry day and night 
unto him ? So to assert would be shocking." I would 
reply by asking: "Are all baptized persons ; God's own 
elect?' " Are none of his elect to be found among the 
unbaptized ? " So to assert would be shocking." Yet, 
Mr. Lard must so assert, or admit that, with his own 
interpretation, this parable is still against him. 



62 AN EXAMINATION OjT LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Mr. Lard adds: "And yet clearly 'God's own elect' 
are the persons for whose benefit the parable was spoken, 
and whom it teaches to pray always and not to faint. It 
has no reference whatever to sinners." Mr. Lard, then, 
limits the term " men" in the introduction to the para- 
ble by the term " elect" used at the close of it. Now, 
is he prepared to say, that the " ought''' applies only to 
the " elect?" Then he justifies all the rest of mankind 
in their rebellion and atheism. I readily grant that the 
elect only will pray — that it is characteristic of them 
only, that they cry unto God day and night. But I do 
not grant that none others ought to pray. I am quite 
sure that the "elect" only, love God: but I am quite 
as sure that " men," whether "elect" or not, "ought" 
to love God. Now, suppose Jesus had spoken a parable 
to this end, that " men ought always to love God and 
not rebel against him ;" and had closed by saying, "And 
will not God avenge his own elect who do continually 
love him," would Mr. Lard limit the term "men" by 
the term "elect?" Would he say the " ought" applied 
only to the elect? The cases are parallel. No ; we 
should say, like the Savior to the Pharisees: "Woe 
unto you, Pharisees ! for ye tithe mint and rue and all 
manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love 
of God : these ought ye to have done, and not to leave 
the other undone." — Luke xiv: 42. (Compare Matthew 
xxiii : 23.) Yes, "these ought ye to have done." 
These Pharisees were not God's elect, Mr. Lard. And 
yet they ought to have done judgment, and love, and 
faith. And to do these things includes all those exer- 
cises legitimate to them; and prayer is one. I feel, 
therefore, to say with emphasis, men ought to pray. 
And, in the language of Mr. Jeter, I would say, "Christ 
taught that men — not baptized men merely, but men 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 63 

irrespective of their character, relations, or professions 
— all men — ought, are under obligation to pray." And 
now, if you say of me as you have of Jeter, " It is surely 
a, pity that a man who affects to oppose nothing but 
error, should yet so often do so with those artifices with 
which dishonest men alone stoop to oppose the truth," 
the only reply I will make is, ''Physician, heal thy- 
self." 

The fifth lesson is found in 1 Tim. ii : 1-8: "I ex- 
hort, therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, 
intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men: 
for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we 
may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and 
honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight 
of God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved, 
and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For 
there is one God, and one mediator between God and 
men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ran- 
som for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto 
I am ordained a preacher and an apostle, (I speak the 
truth in Christ and lie not,) a teacher of the Gentiles 
in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray 
everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and 
doubting." 

Now, reader, do you believe that the man who wrote 
the above entertained the notion that it was the duty 
only of the baptized to pray? Note, Paul first exhorts 
that supplications, prayers, etc., be made for all men; 
and then, secondly, says, I will that men pray every- 
where ; and gives as his reason: 

1. c; This is good and acceptable in the sight of God 
our Savior, who will have all men to be saved, and to 
come unto the knowledge of the truth." 

2. " For there is one God, and one mediator between 



64 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself 
a ransom for all." Now, can we believe that for these 
reasons we should pray for all men, and that men every- 
where should pray and yet believe that no unbaptized 
person should pray! No: what Paul would have us do 
for all men, he would have men everywhere to do for 
themselves; and that irrespective of baptism. Shall we 
receive this lesson from Paul as a teacher of the Gen- 
tiles in faith and verity, with his reasons specified, and 
yet qualify the whole by thrusting in baptism ? Let 
him do it that dares ; but we can take no such liberties 
with the word of God ! 

IV. My fourth argument is : 

Unbaptized persons prayed, and prayed acceptably, 
after the commencement of the reign of Christ. 

The question comes up here, at what period are we 
to date the commencement of the reign of Christ ? Mr. 
Lard, I have no doubt, would answer, " At the day of 
Pentecost. " But what won Id he do if called on for the 
proof? I presume Mr. Lard means, by the " reign of 
Christ," what is called his Messianic reign. Well, when 
did that commence? Reader, I will quote a few texts 
and let you form your own conclusion. "In those days 
came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of 
Judea, and saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand/' — Matt, iii: 1, 2. "And from the days of 
John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suf- 
fereth violence, and the violent take it by force/' — Matt. 
xi: 12. Now, reader, put these two texts together, and 
then say what they teach. Was it not the Messianic 
kingdom that John the Baptist announced as being at 
hand ? and was it not the Messianic kingdom that from 
his days suffered violence? Then of course it was in 



jeter's campbellism exposed. G5 

existence before the day of Pentecost; for that which 
has no existence can not suffer violence. 

Again, Matt, xxi: 31: " Verily I say unto you, that 
the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of 
Grod before you." Now what kingdom did these pub- 
licans and harlots go into? Was it not the Messianic 
kingdom? Then it existed before Pentecost; for they 
could not go into a kingdom that had no existence. 

Once more, Luke xvi : 16: " The law and the prophets 
were until John ; since that time the kingdom of God 
is preached, and every man presseth into it." Now 
does not this mean the Messianic kingdom ? Then it 
existed before the day of Pentecost. 

I am reminded here of what I once read in a debate 
between Mr. Benjamin Johnson, of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, and Mr. J. P. Lancaster, of the Canip- 
bellite order. Mr. Lancaster quoted this text and then 
said, in substance, thus: (I quote from memory:) "My 
friends, I wish you to remember that my friend, Mr. 
Johnson, holds that the Christian kingdom is only a 
continuation of the Jewish. Now if it is, then these 
persons were already in it. Now I call upon Mr. John- 
son to explain how persons who were already in a king- 
dom could be said to press into it." When I read this 
I was anxious to see how Mr. Johnson would meet it. 
Well, he met it in this way: "My friends, I wish you 
to remember that my friend, Mr. Lancaster, holds that 
the Christian kingdom was not set up until Pentecost. 
Then, at this time, according to him, there was no Chris- 
tian kingdom ! Now I want him to tell into what 
kingdom these people did press!" "A theological 'dog- 
fall !' " said I. Neither of them answered the other's 
question. Neither could do it consistently with his 
hypothesis. And hence each refuted the other ! No ; 



66 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

the truth is just as this text declares : The law and the 
prophets were until John. * * * Since that time 
the kingdom of God is preached. And here we date 
the commencement of the reign of Christ. 

But perhaps Mr. Lard may admit the existence of 
the kingdom, but still contend that Jesus did not reign 
in it until Pentecost. Then I suppose he will let us 
have a kingdom without a king ! Let me read Mr. Lard 
a text on this point, (Matt, xxi: 5:) "Tell ye the 
daughter of Zion, Behold thy king cometh unto thee, meek, 
and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." 
(Compare Zech. ix: 9.) Was Jesus Christ a king when 
he thus rode into Jerusalem? He was, if Matthew's tes- 
timony is true. And let me ask Mr. Lard what he un- 
derstands by the Savior's preface to his last and great 
command, (Matt, xxviii : 18:) "All power is given unto 
me in heaven and in earth?" Is not the word power 
here to be taken in the sense of authority? This the 
original demands. Well, if all authority in heaven and 
in earth was at this time given to Jesus Christ, what 
authority was given him at Pentecost? If all authority 
is once given, I do not suppose there is any more to 
give ! 

Will Mr. Lard say, " I admit that Jesus Christ was a 
king before the day of Pentecost, but he had no king- 
dom?" Then you give us two anomalies: A kingdom 
without a king ! a king without a kingdom ! ! No, Mr. 
Lard, give up your hypothesis, and believe what is so 
plainly taught, and with us date the commencement of 
the reign of Christ from the days of John ! 

Having ascertained the commencement of the reign 
of Christ to be from the days of John, the first exam- 
ple of an unbaptized person's praying, and praying ac- 
ceptably, during the reign of Christ, is found in Luke 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 67 

xviii: 13, 14: "And the publican standing afar off, would 
not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote 
upon his breast saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 
I tell you, this man went down to his house, justified 
rather than the other; for every one that exalteth him- 
self shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall 
be exalted." 

Note particularly, this publican prayed for the remis- 
sion of his sins. The very thing that Mr. Lard says no 
unbaptized person is authorized by the Bible to pray for, 
not even by implication ! And note also that he was 
heard. " I tell you," says Jesus, " this man went down 
to his house justified" therefore, pardoned; for justifi- 
cation includes pardon. 

Perhaps the reader is curious to know how Mr. Lard 
disposes of this case. Well, reader, here is all he says : 
" The next case alluded to by Mr. Jeter is that of the 
publican who went up to the temple to pray. But this 
is not a case in point. We have not denied that it was 
the duty of a Jew, living under the law, to pray. What 
we deny is that it is the duty of the ungodly, during 
the reign of Christ, to pray. But even the case of the 
publican does not determine who, i. e., whether saint or 
sinner — is to pray, but only that whoever prays must, 
if he pray acceptably, pray with deep, heartfelt humility. 
This is what the case determines, no more/' 

Reader, let us examine what Mr. Lard has here said. 

1. " This is not a case in point. We have not denied 
that it was the duty of a Jew, living under the law, to 
pray." Is this case not in point? It is, because the 
publican was an unbaptized person ; he prayed during 
the reign of Christ, and he was heard ! But " we have 
not denied that it was the duty of a Jew, living under 
the law, to pray." What does Mr. Lard mean by "living 



68 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

under the law?" Does he not mean under the law dis- 
pensation? He must mean this. Well then, I deny- 
that the publican lived under the law. The law and the 
prophets were until John, not after him. But the pub- 
lican went into the temple to pray after John; there- 
fore after the termination of the law dispensation. 

2. " What we deny is, that it is the duty of the un- 
godly, during the reign of Christ to pray." Is this what 
you deny, Mr. Lard? You set out by saying: "We as- 
sert now, as we have ever done, that there is not one 
passage in the Bible which, during the reign of Christ, 
makes it the duty of an unbaptized person to pray." 
Now do you call these identical propositions? Do you 
intend to say that all unbaptized persons are ungodly 
persons? This you must intend to say, or you have 
shifted your ground. Be it remembered, that in Mr. 
Lard's estimation all unimmersed persons are unbaptized 
persons. He must include under the epithet unbaptized 
all Pedobaptists except such as have been immersed. 
Will he say they are all ungodly ? He must say it, or 
he denies more than he has here stated. What he de- 
nies is, that it is the duty of unbaptized persons — not 
merely the ungodly — during the reign of Christ, to 
pray. 

3. "But even the case of the publican does not de- 
termine who, i. e., whether saint or sinner, is to pray." 
Now, why did he not say, "t. e., whether baptized or 
unbaptized, is to pray?" The parties in the issue should 
be kept in the argument. But does not the case of the 
publican determine who is to pray? Does it not show 
that the duty is not exclusively binding on the saints? 
Did he say, " God be merciful to me a saint? " 

4. I agree in part with Mr. Lard's final remark. I 
agree that the example of the publican teaches "that 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 69 

whoever prays must, if he pray acceptably, pray with 
deep, heartfelt humility." But I deny that the case de- 
termines " no more " than this. The case determines Mr. 
Lard's position to be false. 

Our second example of an unbaptized person's pray.- 
ing, and praying acceptably, during the reign of Christ, 
is that of the thief, Luke xxiii : 42, 43. " Lord, remem- 
ber me when thou comest into thy kingdom/' was the 
prayer. "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," 
was the gracious answer. 

Mr. Lard says of this example, it "has no reference 
whatever to the question in dispute. Besides being a 
case which can never happen again, and intended to 
teach no general duty, it occurred at a time when bap- 
tism was obligatory on no one. We shall, therefore, 
dismiss it without further notice." 

1. You say, " This case has no reference whatever to 
the question in dispute ! " How can you say that? Is 
not the question in dispute whether, during the reign 
of Christ, unbaptized persons ought to pray? Was not 
the thief an unbaptized person? Then is he not an ex- 
ample against you? Ah ! "that's the rub." 

2. You say it is a " case that can never happen 
again." Well, suppose it can not, what then? I do 
not suppose another thief will ever be crucified with 
Christ, as he will never again be crucified. But may 
not another unbaptized man in the dying hour say, 
"Lord, remember me?" And should not this example 
encourage him ? 

3. You say, " It occurred at a time when baptism was 
obligatory on no one." How did you find that out? 
We have no proof, nor any good reason to believe, that 
baptism ceased to be practiced from the time of John's 
first immersion in the Jordan. While John was bap 



70 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

tizing in iEnon, near to Salem, did not Jesus come with 
his disciples into the land of Judea, and there tarry with 
them and baptize? — John iii: 22. And was it not re- 
ported that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than 
John? — John iv : 1. Was it ever disputed? Never, 
except that Jesus did not, but his disciples did baptize. 
Well, did they not baptize by his authority ? And is it 
not reasonable to conclude that as Jesus so began his 
ministry, he would so continue it? Nay, is not this a 
necessary inference ? In the absence of all testimony 
to the contrary, we are bound so to conclude. Hence 
Mr. Lard's assertion, that " Baptism was, at this time, 
obligatory on no one," is perfectly gratuitous. 

Our third example of an unbaptized person's praying, 
and praying acceptably, during the reign of Christ, is 
the case of Saul, Acts ix : 6 : " And he, trembling and 
astonished, said: 'Lord, what w T ilt thou have me to 
do?"' This is a prayer. " And the Lord said, 'Arise 
and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou 
must do.' " This is the answer. Well, what does Mr. 
Lard say about this ? He says : 

u l. We readily grant that Saul prayed, but deny that 
he prayed because Christ made it his duty to pray. He 
prayed precisely as any other Jew, in deep sorrow, would 
have prayed, and for no other reason. 

" 2. That his prayer was acceptable to the Lord is not 
known. It may, or it may not have been, for aught 
that appears in the narrative. The Lord merely stated 
the fact that he prayed, not that he accepted the prayer. 
To state a fact, as a fact, is one thing ; to accept it as 
an act of worship is another. We must first show that 
the Lord has made it the duty of the sinner to pray, 
before we can infer that his prayer is acceptable. And 
as to Ananias being sent to instruct and baptize Saul, 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 71 

in consequence of the acceptableness of his prayer, it is a 
sheer fiction.' There is no evidence that it is true. 

" The most that can be said of the case of SauJ (and 
this much certainly can be said) is, that, when Ananias 
commanded him to be baptized and wash away his sins, 
he commanded him to do so calling on the name of the 
Lord. And so we say : Command the sinner, not to 
pray for the remission of his sins, (for the Lord has not 
enjoined it on him;) but to be baptized and wash them 
away, calling on the name of the Lord. This form of 
prayer, and under these circumstances, we approve from 
our heart. " 

Now, reader, let us take up and examine what Mr. 
Lard has here said, item by item : 

1. "We readily grant that Saul prayed." Very well. 
This point, then, is settled. 

2. " But deny that he prayed because Christ made it 
his duty to pray." Who ever said he did? He had just 
now, for the first time, recognized Jesus as the Christ. 
Up to this moment he had looked upon him as an im- 
postor. But was there nothing in the Bible author- 
izing him to pray? Do you not suppose that Saul was 
familiar with, "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, 
and call ye upon him while he is near?" — Isa. lv : 6. 
And with this : " They who call upon the name of the 
Lord shall be saved." — Joel ii : 32. And did he not 
find in these a sufficient warrant? 

But, tell me, did not Jesus make it his disposition 
to pray ? But would he give a disposition running- 
counter to his own authority? His prayer was the im- 
mediate effect of the discovery he had just made, and 
was consonant with it. 

3. " Saul prayed precisely as any other Jew in deep 
sorrow would have prayed, and for no other reason." 



72 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Now, if Mr. Lard had said, " Saul prayed precisely as 
any other penitent Jew (and he might have added, Gen- 
tile too) would have prayed, and for a similar reason," 
he would have been about right. There has been many 
a " Jew in deep sorrow " that never offered such a 
prayer as Saul did, nor for the "same reason." Saul 
prayed because he found himself a persecutor of the 
true Messiah, and u kicking against the goads." Have 
all other Jews in deep sorrow prayed for this reason ? 

4. " That this prayer was acceptable to the Lord is 
not known." Indeed? Do we not know that a prayer 
is acceptable to the Lord when we know that the Lord 
answers it? The Lord answers no unacceptable prayer. 
The Lord answered Saul's prayer, therefore it was ac- 
ceptable. 

But we also know that Saul's prayer was acceptable 
to the Savior, because he spoke approvingly of it. Jesus 
said to Ananias, " Arise and go into the street which 
is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas 
for one called Saul of Tarsus : for behold he prayeth" 
! was it not pleasing to the benevolent Jesus that 
the whole tide of this man's moral feelings was turned 
into a new channel! That now this persecutor and 
blasphemer, instead of breathing out threatenings and 
slaughter, was breathing out the spirit of penitence and 
prayer ! I have no doubt that there was holy triumph 
in his eye as the Savior said to Ananias, " Behold he 
prayeth." Pity that Mr. Lard, to save a favorite dog- 
ma, — and such a dogma ! — is compelled to say, u It is 
not known " that the Lord accepted this prayer ! ! ! 

5. We shall notice what Mr. Lard says is the " most 
that can be said of the case of Sauh" under another 
head. We pass to consider the fourth example of an 
unbaptized person's praying, and praying acceptably, 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 73 

during the reign of Christ. It is found in Acts x: 1, 2: 
" There was a man in Cesarea called Cornelius, a centu- 
rion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, 
and one that feared God with all his house, which gave 
much alms to the people, and 'prayed to God always." 

This is a case which Mr. Lard has not touched. What 
he would say to it I can not tell. What can he say to 
it? He can not say as he has said of Saul, that Cor- 
nelius prayed as a Jew. Cornelius was a Gentile. Cor- 
nelius was not at this time baptized. Well, was his 
prayer heard ? Let us hear the testimony of the angel : 
" The angel said to him, Thy prayers and thine alms 
are come up for a memorial before God. 1 ' — V. 4. " Thy 
prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance 
in the sight of God."— V. 31. 

There is another thought, which, if it were possible, 
strengthens this example, namely : Peter, when Corne- 
lius narrated before him the vision he had had, and the 
assurance of the angel that his prayers were heard, etc., 
responded : '•' Of a truth I perceive that God is no re- 
specter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth 
him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him/' 
—V. 34. 

Now does not this language of Peter show that Cor- 
nelius was accepted just as a Jew or any other person 
would be accepted? How else did it cause Peter to per- 
ceive that God is no respecter of persons? .If no person 
ought to pray before baptism, Peter ought to have known 
it, and, therefore, his wonder ought to have been that 
Cornelius, an unbaptized man, was heard at all ! No : 
his wonder was that a Gentile was heard and accepted, 
just as Jews were heard and accepted. He had thought 
that God was a respecter of the Jews, but now he per- 
ceived better. Peter's words certainly show that just 
4 



74 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

as God accepted Cornelius before baptism as a man who 
u feared God and worked righteousness," so would he 
accept of any one else of whatever nation or people he 
might be. Peter's words, then, as well as the example, 
are a complete refutation of Mr. Lard's position. 

Y. My fifth and final argument is : 

Mr. Lard lias not produced a single text to prove that, 
daring the reign of Christ, it is not the duty of an unbap- 
tized person to pray. 

I take it that as Mr. Lard has not produced one text 
to sustain his position, no such text can be found. If 
there was such a text he is the man to find it, and bring 
it forward. But he has not done it. The only thing 
like proof in his entire article on this subject is his final 
remark on the case of Saul. I will now bring it forward: 

" The most that can be said of the case of Saul — and 
this much certainly can be said — is, that, when Ananias 
commanded him to be baptized and wash away his sins, 
he commanded him to do so calling on the name of the 
Lord. And so we say, command the sinner, not to pray 
for the remission of his sins — for the Lord has not 
enjoined it on him — but to be baptized and wash them 
away, calling on the name of the Lord. This form of 
prayer and under these circumstances, we approve from 
our heart." 

Mr. Lard, from the above, certainly understands Ana- 
nias as teaching Saul that it was not his duty to call on 
the name of the Lord, only as a baptized man. Now, 
if Mr. Lard is right, Saul so understood Ananias. But 
did Saul so understand him ? Let the reader remember 
that this Saul afterward became Paul the apostle of the 
Gentiles, and author of a large portion of the New Testa- 
ment. And he has written on the subject of prayer. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 75 

But never, never, has he hinted that no unbaptized per- 
son should call on the name of the Lord. Remember 
the lesson we have already considered as given by him 
to Timothy. And now let us go to Rom. x : 9, 13. 
Here the apostle is teaching expressly the way of sal- 
vation, and what the word of faith which he preached 
affirmed. It is this : " If thou shalt confess with thy 
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart 
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
saved." " Is it possible that this is what Paul says?" 
Yes, this is what he says. " Does he not say a word 
about baptism? 1 ' No, not a word. "Well, does he offer 
no proofs?" Yes, he offers two proofs. One from Isa. 
xxviii : 16: "He that believethf on him shall not be 
ashamed/' The other from Joel ii : 32 : " He that 
calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved." And 
he contends that this passage proves that " the same 
Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Did 
he not add, "provided they have been baptized?" Ne. 
Such a thought never entered his mind. " Then he or 
Mr. Lard, one, has misunderstood Ananias." Well, I 
suspect it is Mr. Lard? "But do n't the apostle ask, 
How can they call on him in whom they have not be- 
lieved?" Yes; but he does not ask, "How can they 
call on him unless they have been baptized." " 0, if 
he had only asked that question, how glad Mr. Lard 
would be ! " Yes, but he has not done it, and Mr. Lard 
will have to go ungratified. 

Reader, I have now gone through with my argument 
Let me recapitulate. I have first shown that prayer 
is a moral duty, and therefore binding on all rational 
human beings, and that, consequently, it has not been, 
and can not be affected by baptism. 

I have shown that prayer must be binding upon all 



76 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

rational human beings, because the Bible condemns 
those that neglect it as worthy of the wrath of God. 

I have shown that in no lesson taught us in the New 
Testament on the subject of prayer, is there the remotest 
hint that the duty was limited by baptism. 

I have shown that we have at least four examples of 
unbaptized individuals praying, and praying acceptably, 
during the reign of Christ. One of whom prayed ex- 
pressly for the remission of his sins, and received a 
gracious answer. 

Finally, I have shown that Mr. Lard has shown noth- 
ing like proof for his strange dogma on this subject. 

Then in whose favor should the scale turn ? Reader, 
I dread not your verdict. 

I will close this chapter in the words of Mr. Lard, 
only substituting his name for Mr. Jeter's : 

"And are these cases — I would rather say this case, 
for Saul's is the only case Mr. Lard has urged — all that 
Mr. Lard could urge in defense of his doctrine? And 
does he ask us to accept it as true on no better grounds? 
We shall only add, we wonder that even he did not be- 
come ashamed of his feeble defense, and abandon the 
cause he was so ineffectually seeking to establish." 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 77 



CHAPTER III. 

THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION. 

1. 1. In writing on this subject, I wish to follow Mr. 
Lard's arrangement for the convenience of the reader. 
I want the number of the sections to correspond, so 
that reference can be easily made from one book to the 
other. 

2. Mr. Lard devotes thirty-five pages of his book to 
the examination of " Mr. Jeter's doctrine of the influ- 
ence of the Spirit in conversion. 7 ' But as I have de- 
termined not to notice his book as a Review of Jeter, 
I shall pass it all by except so much as tends to throw 
light on Mr. Lard's own doctrine. 

3. On page seventy-six, Mr. Lard begins the state- 
ment and defense of his " own doctrine " on this sub- 
ject. He states the "proposition to be maintained " 
thus : 

" The Holy Spirit operates in conversion through the 
truth only" 

Mr. Lard then goes on to submit " a number of pre- 
liminaries before entering upon the defense proper of 
this proposition." The first is the Campbellite view of 
the " Spirit itself/' He says : 

" We wish to state distinctly that we conceive it to 
be a person in the sublimest sense of the word. We 
do not conceive it to be a mere influence or impersonal 
emanation from the Father, or the Son ; or from both \ 



78 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

but in the strictest sense of the term a person. As to 
its nature, it is spirit; personally it is the Spirit; of- 
ficially the Holy Spirit. Personally considered, these 
expressions may be said to exhaust the sum of human 
knowledge respecting the Spirit. Assuming these views 
to be correct, no effort is here made to defend them." 

I must confess that the above leaves me in doubt. I 
have heretofore believed and contended that Mr. Camp- 
bell and all his followers, except such as still entertain 
the peculiar notions of Mr. B. W. Stone, agreed with the 
evangelical denominations in the divinity and person- 
ality of the Holy Spirit, if not in his agency in conver- 
sion. But I am unable to see anything in all that Mr. 
Lard has here said, that necessarily implies his divinity. 
True his divinity is not denied. It is passed over in 
silence. But is not this silence significant? especially 
as Mr. Lard has said his "expressions exhaust the sum 
of human knowledge respecting the Spirit?" 

But there is another circumstance which makes me 
doubt, namely : Mr. Lard throughout his book, uni- 
formly uses the pronoun of the neuter gender (it) to 
represent the Spirit when he does not employ his name. 
Now why is this? Does he ever use the pronoun "it" 
to represent God? Never. And I should like to know 
how the pronoun "it" can represent a person except 
in the most diminutive manner. 

But perhaps some reader may feel to apologize for 
Mr. Lard by saying : " The noun, spirit, can neither 
be masculine nor feminine, hence l iV is the proper pro- 
noun by which to represent spirit." To this I reply: 
Why did not the Spirit of Inspiration think so? An- 
gels are spirits, (Heb. i: 7-14;) yet the pronoun u it " 
is never used to represent them. God is a Spirit, (John 
iv : 24;) but is "it" used to represent him? How 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 79 

strangely would it sound to read, "God is a spirit, and 
they that worship it must worship it in spirit and in 
truth ?" It sounds to me not only strange, but pro- 
fane to read it, it, on every page of Mr. Lard's book 
when the Holy Spirit is intended. 

I do think that Mr. Lard, in using "it" to repre- 
sent the Holy Spirit, has greatly dishonored him. He 
has certainly departed from the usage of the Bible, and 
has given just ground for being suspected of a disbe- 
lief of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. 

The Bible, when speaking of the Spirit, employs the 
pronoun of the masculine gender. I will quote a few 
passages : " But when the Comforter is come whom I 
will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of 
truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify 
of me." — John xv: 26. Again: " I will pray the Father, 
and he will give you another Comforter, that he may 
abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth whom 
the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not : but 
ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you and shall be 
in you/' — John xiv : 16, 17. Again: " But the Com- 
forter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will 
send in my name, he shall teach you all things/' — John 
xiv : 26. Once more : " But if I depart I will send him 
unto you. And when he is come he will reprove the 
world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. * * 
* * Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he 
will guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak of 
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak, 
and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify 
me : for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto 
you."— John xvi: 7, 8, 13, 14. Finally: " But all these 
worketh, that one and the self-same Spirit dividing to 
every man severally as he will/' — 1 Cor. xii : 11. 



80 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

It may do for a u Graduate of Bethany College " to 
use the pronoun " it " for the Holy Spirit : but a grad- 
uate in the school of Christ will not treat him with such 
indignity. 

Nothing is more plainly revealed in the Bible than 
the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. My limits will allow 
only a brief statement of its teachings on this subject. 
I shall content myself with the quotation of a few texts 
followed by a few brief remarks. 

1. Paul, in Acts xxviii : 25, 26, 27, says: "Well 
spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto the 
fathers, saying, Go unto this people," etc. Now turn to 
Isaiah vi : 8, and you will see that these are there said 
to be the words of the Lord, Jehovah. Now, as Paul 
calls these the words of the Holy Ghost, he must have 
regarded the Holy Ghost and Jehovah as only two 
names for the same Divine person: or, otherwise, he 
contradicts Isaiah. But this no believer in the Bible 
will admit. Then the Jehovah of Isaiah, and the Holy 
Ghost of Paul, are one and the same Being. 

2. In Acts v : 3, 4, we are told that Peter said to 
Ananias : " Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to 
the Holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied unto men but 
unto God" Now, does not Peter here emphatically 
assert that the Holy Ghost is God? 

3. 2 Cor. vi : 16: "For ye are the temple of the liv- 
ing God; as God has said, I will dwell in them, and 
walk in them." Now compare 1 Cor. vi : 19: " What I 
know ye not that your -bodies are the temple of the 
Holy Ghost?" and Eph. ii : 22: "In whom ye also are 
builded together for a habitation of God through the 
Spirit." Now these three texts, when collated, show 
that the living God of the first, is the Holy Ghost of 
the second. And the word temple, in the first two, cor* 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 81 

responds with the word habitation in the third. All 
together, therefore, show that the Holy Ghost is God. 

4. 2 Cor. iii: 17: " Now the Lord is that Spirit/'' 
"That Spirit— what? Why that Spirit by which ye 
'our epistles' are l written/ verse 3. Then that Spirit 
which writes God's law on the fleshly tables of the heart, 
is < the Lord.' " 

5. And finally, in Acts iv : 24, 25, we read : " They 
lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, 
Lord, thou art God, who hast made heaven, and earth, 
and the sea, and all that in them is. Who by the 
mouth of thy servant David hath said/' etc. Now com- 
pare Acts i: 16: " The Scripture must needs have been 
fulfilled which the Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of 
David." Now, is it not plain that the Holy Ghost of 
the one passage, is the Lord God of the other, who 
spake by the mouth of David ? 

Now, as the Holy Ghost is Divine, all the attributes 
of the Deity are ascribed to him. 

1. Eternity. "Christ, who through the eternal Spirit 
offered himself without spot to God/' — Heb. ix : 14. 

2. Omnipresence. " Whither shall I go from thy 
Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" — 
Psalm cxxxvii : 7. 

3. Omniscience. " The Spirit searcheth all things, yea 
the deep things of God. Even so. the things of God 
knoweth no man but the Spirit of God." — 1 Cor. ii : 
10, 11. 

4. Passing by all that Mr. Lard says about the " prop- 
osition to be discussed," not being a " question of 
power," or what the Spirit " can do," but simply a 
question of what he does in conversion ; and all he 
says about " providential influences," etc., etc., for the 
present, I wish to notice his unfairness in trying to make 

4* 



82 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

it appear that Mr. Jeter has conceded to him the " very 
ground " he claims. Mr. Lard says : 

" Indeed he concedes to us the very ground we claim, 
and the only ground which, in this controversy, it is 
possible to settle, namely : that the Spirit does operate 
through the truth. His language is : 'It is freely ad- 
mitted that the Spirit operates through the word in the 
conversion and sanctification of men.' What then have 
we to do? Simply nothing. It would be impossible to 
close a controversy more completely in favor of one of 
the parties than the present controversy is here closed 
in our favor.' 1 

Then are we not ready to ask why did not Mr. Lard 
here lay down his pen? Ah! reader, Mr. Lard did not 
mean so, nor did his heart think so. He knew Mr. Jeter 
had not conceded the ground he claims. He knew that 
while he chooses to employ Mr. Jeter's language, he 
attaches to it a very different meaning to what Mr. 
Jeter does. I will now make this palpable. Mr. Lard 
says : " But what do we mean when we say the Spirit 
operates through the truth? We mean that it operates 
hy the truth ; that is, that Divine truth is itself the 
vital power by which in all cases the Spirit effects con- 
version ; in other words, that the Spirit spends on the 
mind of the sinner in conversion no influence except 
such as resides in the truth as Divine as of the Spirit. 
And we shall further add, that neither in quantity nor 
in force do we conceive that this influence can be in- 
creased and the human will be left free." 

Now, reader, do you understand Mr. Lard? He cer- 
tainly means that the Holy Spirit operates through the 
truth, in no other sense than that he is the author of 
the truth that operates. Now Mr. Jeter means no such 
thing. He means just what he says — that the Holy 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 8S 

Spirit does operate. Not simply that lie is the author 
of the truth that converts because it is of him ; but the 
Holy Spirit himself converts by means of the truth. 

That I have not mistaken or misunderstood Mr. Lard, 
I will again show. 

On page 74, Mr. Lard says: "iVccording to Mr. Camp- 
bell's theory, conversion is in every case effected by the 
influence of the Spirit; but then comes the question, 
what influence is meant? He denies that it is an influ- 
ence distinct from and above the truth, and maintains 
that the truth itself is that influence." Now, what is 
the meaning of this? Does it not show that while Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. Lard talk like other men about con- 
version being effected by the influence of the Holy Spirit, 
they have a meaning of their own ? When Mr. Camp- 
bell says : Conversion is effected by the influence of the 
Spirit, he means it is effected by the truth, which is 
itself that influence. And when Mr. Lard says : The 
Holy Spirit operates through the truth in conversion, 
he means the truth itself operates ! Their propositions 
assert his agency, their arguments deny it! 

It does appear to me silly to talk about the Holy 
Spirit's operating through the truth, when it is denied 
that the Holy Spirit " spends on the mind of the sinner 
in conversion any influence except such as resides in 
the truth;" or to talk about ascribing conversion in every 
case to the influence of the Spirit, when it is contended 
that the truth itself is that influence. If the truth it- 
self is that influence, how can the Holy Spirit operate 
through it? The Holy Spirit operate through his own 
influence ! What is his influence but his operation ? 
Does he operate through his operation ? influence 
through his influence ? 

I think I might justly say Mr. Lard concedes in his 



84 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

proposition the very ground we claim, if he would drop 
the word " only " from the end of it. Let it read : 
"The Holy Spirit operates in conversion through the 
truth," and we will subscribe to it; for if words have 
any meaning, or if they are to be understood according 
to their plain grammatical and logical import, this prop- 
osition asserts the present agency of the Spirit in every 
case of conversion. It is a singular fact, as our future 
investigation will show, that while Mr. Lard's leading 
proposition asserts that in conversion the Holy Spirit 
operates, every argument he employs denies it. 

II. Let us now examine Mr. Lard's first argument. 
It is this: "That the necessity does not exist for any 
influence in conversion, except such as is exerted through 
Divine truth, and that hence no other is exerted." 

1. This argument is ambiguously w r orded. When it 
is asserted that " the necessity does not exist for any in- 
fluence in conversion, except such as is exerted through 
the truth/' we are left to ask — exerted by whom ? And 
the answer might be : " By the Holy Spirit." But this 
answer is precluded by what we have already considered. 
We have already seen that when Campbellites say, '-con- 
version is in every case effected by the influence of the 
Spirit," they mean " the truth itself is that influence." 
Mr. Lard's meaning is this : The necessity does not exist 
for any influence in conversion, except such as the truth 
itself exerts. That this is his meaning, his amplifica- 
tion fully shows. He says: 

" In the present controversy this argument must be 
conceived as having great weight. Nothing is done in 
effecting redemption, for which there does not exist a 
necessity. And in all cases in which, like the present, 
a peculiar interposition is denied, the necessity for it 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 85 

must be first clearly shown, otherwise such denial stands 
good against it." Again : "Where a necessity exists 
for doing a thing, there exists a reason for doing it; but 
where no such necessity exists, the presumption is that 
if the thing is done at all, it is done without a reason, 
which, in the case of conversion, is not admissible. We 
hence conclude that in conversion no influence is exerted 
distinct from and above the truth." 

Mr. Lard then goes on to say : " What is here said 
suggests the true theory of the argument usually urged 
from depravity in defense of an influence above or not 
in the truth." Reader, mark that. Does it not show 
that the influence for which Mr. Lard is contending is, 
in his estimation, now in the truth? Then it is not now 
in the Holy Spirit; for the Holy Spirit and the truth 
are not identical. Mr. Lard continues : " It is first 
assumed that man is totally, or, as Mr. Jeter has it, 
utterly depraved. It is then urged that this utter de- 
pravity, or rather the resistance which is met with from 
it in conversion, can not be overcome by any force of 
Divine truth, however great, and that there is, hence, a 
necessity for another and greater influence. But, in- 
stead of assuming this, which is the main point in their 
argument, let the advocates of this peculiar influence 
come forward and show us, either by indisputable and 
pertinent facts, or by passages of Holy Writ, clear and 
relevant, that man is thus depraved ; then, and not until 
then, will their argument be of any force or entitled to 
any respect." 

I have quoted enough of what Mr. Lard has here said, 
to give the reader the full benefit of his argument. Let 
me now ask, does it sustain his proposition ? Does it 
prove that in conversion the Holy Spirit operates? 
Rather does it not deny that he operates? Does it not 



86 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

deny that there is any necessity for his operation ? Does 
it not contend that all the influence necessary to conver- 
sion, is now in the truth ? 

The reader can also see how the adoption and advo- 
cacy of one error, leads to the adoption and advocacy of 
another. The adoption of the notion that the truth 
itself is all the influence necessary in conversion, has led 
Mr. Lard and his brethren to deny the doctrine of de- 
pravity, and contend for the mere peccability of human 
nature. 

But one thing I wish to have especially noted, name- 
ly : If we prove the doctrine of total depravity, we prove 
the agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion. This, I 
feel confident, can be done, and this I shall attempt to 
do at the proper time. For the present I leave the 
reader to ponder over what I have written. 

Mr. Lard's second argument is : 

"That any influence more intense than that of Divine 
truth, and above it, such as Mr. Jeter contends for, would, 
of necessity, infringe the freedom of the human will, and 
hence, can not be admitted to be present in conversion." 

Now, reader, is that not a strange argument to prove 
that in conversion the Holy Spirit operates? Does it 
not deny that any influence is present in conversion ex- 
cept that of Divine truth? If the Holy Spirit operates 
in conversion through the truth, then there are present 
in conversion both the truth and this operation of the 
Spirit through it. And is not this operation necessarily 
more intense than the truth itself? Must not the opera- 
tion of the agent be more intense than the simple instru- 
ment through which he operates? Evidently it is Mr 
Lard's intention to deny that there is present in con 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 87 

version any influence except that of the truth. This 
will appear in his amplification of his argument. But 
be it remembered, that in denying it he denies his own 
14 proposition. " 

Mr. Lard begins his amplification by saying : " In 
order to be responsible, man must be left free." Again: 
"All we can do for him, or with him, as a moral agent, 
is to present the truth, proved to be such, distinctly to 
his mind, and then leave him free as the unfettered 
wind to accept it or reject it. The instant we restrain 
him by external force, or constrain him by internal in- 
fluence, that instant he ceases to be a free man, and his 
act is not his own." 

Reader, let me urge upon you a careful perusal of the 
above quotation, and then let me ask you the following 
question : Does not Mr. Lard here exclude the agency 
of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit has nothing to do 
with the presentation of the truth to the mind of the 
sinner. This is done by the preacher. Then, if this 
is "all we can do" for the sinner "as a moral agent," 
the Holy Spirit does nothing for him. If after the pres- 
entation of the truth the sinner is to be left free as the 
unfettered wind, to accept it or reject it, if no influence, 
external or internal, is to be brought to bear upon him, 
then the Holy Spirit does nothing in the case. 

Let us hear Mr. Lard further : 

"Now, there is but one case we need consider: that 
of a man unwilling to receive the truth. For if a man 
is perfectly willing to receive the truth, it is impossible 
to conceive the advantage to him of an influence de- 
signed to have only the effect to make him willing. 
But he is, suppose, no matter from what cause, unwill- 
ing, or disinclined to receive the truth. But the Spirit 
interposes with an influence distinct from and above the 



00 AN EXAMINATION OF LARDS REVIEW OF 

truth, and inclines him to do the thing which he himself 
is inclined not to do. Is this the act of a man acting of 
his own will, or is it not rather the act of a man acting 
against his will? Certainly, Mr. Jeter will doubtless 
tell us, it is the act of a man acting of his own will, for 
the Spirit gives the man the will. The case, then, is 
simply this : the man is not compelled to act against his 
will, but compelled to accept a will which is not his 
own. We shall leave the reader to decide how much 
this improves the case/' 

This paragraph of Mr. Lard's teems with error. 

1. He supposes that some men are naturally willing 
to receive the truth, and, therefore, do not need the in- 
fluences of the Holy Spirit to make them willing. No 
such cases exist. Two texts are sufficient to settle this 
question forever: "No man can come unto me, except 
the Father who hath sent me draw him." — John vi : 44. 
" For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to 
do of his good pleasure." — Phil, ii : 13. 

2. He supposes that if the Spirit "inclines" the sin- 
ner to do that which he is "inclined not to do," the 
doing of that thing is " not of his own will, but against 
his own will." Now, does not Mr. Lard know that in- 
stances innumerable can be presented where persons 
have been "inclined" through the influence of another 
to do what they themselves were unwilling to do? I 
will instance a case or two: (Luke xi : 5-8:) " What 
man of you if he have a friend and shall go unto him 
at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three 
loaves; for a friend of mine in his journey is come to 
me, and I have nothing to set before him. And he 
from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not; the 
door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; 
lean not rise and give thee." Now, here note; this man 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 89 

had the truth plainly presented before him ; but he waa 
"wholly disinclined to do it. Now, what is to be done 
with him ? According to Mr. Lard's philosophy, we 
must just let him alone : for the instant we go a step 
further and exert any additional influence upon him, he 
is degraded to the level of a mere machine, he ceases to 
be a free man, and the act he may perform under such 
additional influence, will not be his own. But the man 
who needed the loaves cared nothing about such phi- 
losophy. He importuned until he affected and changed 
the will of the man in the bed. And he arose and 
gave him as many as he needed. 

Another example is in Luke xviii: 2, 3. u There was 
in a city a judge who feared not God nor regarded man ; 
and there was also in that city a poor widow ; and she 
came to this judge, saying, Avenge me of my adversary/' 
Here she presented the truth, but this judge was not 
inclined to do it. Now, what was she to do? Why, 
according to Mr. Lard's philosophy, she ought to have 
left him free as the unfettered wind to act as he pleased 
in the premises. What did she do ? Why, she impor- 
tuned until she changed the loill of the judge, and secured 
his compliance. Now, in these cases, did these men act 
against their own will ? Certainly not. Their wills were 
changed. They became willing, and then they acted. 

3. Mr. Lard supposes, when the will of a man is thus 
changed, he is " compelled to accept of a will which is 
not his own." Now, is this true ? Was not the will of 
the men in the above examples, which they had when 
they complied with the respective propositions submitted 
to them, as much their own as the one they had at the 
first? Did the importuning parties give a will? Then 
these men had two wills ! The one they had at first, 
and the one the importuning parties gave them ! I can 



90 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

not think Mr. Lard believes his own logic. But per- 
haps Mr. Lard will allow one man to change the will 
of another, and yet leave his agency unimpaired, while 
he will not allow the Spirit of God to do so. I appeal to 
the reader. Reader, does not common sense say that if 
it is competent for the spirit of one man thus to change 
the will of another, and yet not impair his agency, it is 
competent for the Spirit of God to do it ? 

Let me quote another paragraph from Mr. Lard : 

" According to this theory, which is the theory of Mr. 
Jeter and his brethren, conversion is in no sense — not 
even in part — in the power of the sinner himself, but 
depends absolutely on the power and will of another. 
Now, we request him to acquaint the world whether the 
sinner, so circumstanced, is responsible for not being 
converted until the Spirit exerts on him that peculiar 
influence for which he contends ; whether, in a word, 
the sinner is responsible for being what he can not but 
be, a sinner? We feel pressed with the necessity of 
light on this subject, and trust our reasonable request 
will not go unheeded/' 

Reader, we must pay particular attention to this para- 
graph. 

1. Mr. Lard is not a competent judge of what is the 
" theory" of Mr. Jeter or of his brethren. In deciding 
the question whether conversion is or is not in the power 
of the sinner, we must first understand clearly what con- 
version is ; and secondly, what we mean by the word 
u power." Conversion is a turning from one thing to 
another. With respect to the sinner, it is a turning 
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan 
unto God, (Acts xxvi : 18,) and has respect to the heart 
as well as the life. Now the question whether this con- 
version is in the power of the sinner, depends upon the 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 91 

meaning of the word power. I hold (and I presume 
Mr. Jeter does too) that the word " power" applies to the 
possession of means. A thing is within a man's power, 
if he have the means of doing it. But it does not fol- 
low that because a man has the means of doing a thing, 
he will be sure to do it. Something more than means 
is necessary to the performance of a voluntary action, 
viz. : the disposition to act. And all that Mr. Jeter de- 
nies, and all that I deny is, that the sinner possesses 
the disposition to act — to turn — to be converted. Now, 
until Mr. Lard is prepared to say that disposition is in- 
volved in the word power, he can not charge that Mr. 
Jeter and his brethren teach that conversion is in no 
sense in the power of the creature. But I shall show 
presently, that disposition is not involved in the mean- 
ing of the word power. 

2. We acknowledge that conversion " absolutely de- 
pends on the power and will of another" — that is, God. 
Ay, we believe that all things depend on his will. Will 
Mr. Lard contend that anything is independent of the 
will of God ? Then, I suppose, he thinks James too strict 
when he complains of those who say, " To-day or to- 
morrow we will go into such a city and continue there 
a year, and buy and sell, and get gain," independent of 
the will of God ! James would have them say, " if the 
Lord will." Is Mr. Lard willing to have the sinner say, 
" My conversion is in my own power, and independent of 
the will of God?" Let him do it if he chooses, but I 
prefer to have him ascribe it to the grace of God. 

3. Mr. Lard "requests that we acquaint the world 
whether the sinner so circumstanced is responsible for 
not being converted," etc. Now, what is the gist of Mr. 
Lard's request here, if it is not this — the sinner's con- 
version must be independent of the will of God, or he 



92 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

is irresponsible for not being converted ! There is not 
only falsehood, but infidelity in his philosophy. Must 
he dethrone God to make man responsible ? If he is 
required to admit the sovereignty of God, he will -deny 
that man is a sinner ! Like the objectors in Paul's day, 
he asks, "Why doth he yet find fault? Who hath re- 
sisted his will?" — Rom. ix : 19. He will either deny 
that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, or 
that man is a guilty creature. 

But let me try to give him some "light on the sub- 
ject.'' Well, Mr. Lard, I conceive that only three 
things are necessary to constitute obligation. 

1. Relation. Relation is necessary to give to one of 
the parties the right to command and to place the other 
under obligation. Well, Creator and creature are cor- 
relatives. God is our Creator; we are his creatures. 
He has, therefore, the right to command, and we are 
under obligations to obey. 

2. The command, or rather the thing commanded, 
must be right in itself. If it is intrinsically wrong, it 
is not binding, even though the party commanding may 
have the right to command. For example: A father has 
the right to command his son; but if he commands his 
son to lie or steal, his command is not binding, because 
the thing commanded is wrong in itself. 

3. The thing commanded must not exceed the power 
of the party upon whom it is enjoined. Now, let us 
consider the word power. I define it as expressive sim- 
ply of means. Men are able to do a thing when they 
have the means of doing it. 

Let us consider a few commands : 

1. CL Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together 
as the manner of some is." Now, this command God 
has a right to give. It is right in itself; but here is a 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 93 

brother who is paralyzed. He has no physical strength. 
Now, is he under obligation to obey this law? But sup- 
pose he has physical strength, then of course the law is 
binding upon him. 

2. "Search the Scriptures." Now, God has a right 
to command this. It is right in itself. But in order 
to this, one must have the Scriptures. He must have 
the necessary amount of learning. And he must have 
eyesight. In other words, he must have the means of 
doing it. If a brother have no Bible, no learning, no 
eyesight, it is not his duty ; but having these, it is. 

3. God says, " Go preach the Gospel." This com- 
mand is right in itself. But a man must have the power 
of speech to do it. I knew a minister who was afflicted 
with paralysis of the tongue. He lost the power of 
speech. Certainly, after this, it was not his duty to 
preach. Before, it was. 

But now, when these three things meet, there is obli- 
gation. Now, God has the right to command the sin- 
ner to be converted. Conversion is right in itself, and 
the sinner has the means. Therefore, he is bound by 
the command. But note one thing: there is wanting 
in his case the disposition, the will. And so long as 
that is wanting, he will certainly remain unconverted. 
Now, the whole question turns upon this : Is obligation 
independent of the disposition ? I say it is. Will Mr. 
Lard say it is not? Now, if obligation is not inde- 
pendent of the disposition, there is no sin. A man may 
see his brother have need, and shut up his bowels of 
compassion from him. He may say, Be ye warmed and 
filled, and yet not give him the things which are need- 
ful for the body, just because he is covetous. He has 
no disposition to give. He has no will to impart to him 
that needeth. Is it, therefore, not his duty? It is cer- 



94: AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

tain that so long as avarice is the law of his nature, he 
will violate the law of benevolence. But is he guilt- 
less? He is, if disposition is necessary to obligation. 
But he is not guiltless ; therefore, disposition is not ne- 
cessary to obligation. Here is a man, who has married 
a wife, and is the father of helpless children. He is 
commanded to provide for those of his own house. He 
has a good trade, and is in good health. But he is a 
sluggard. He will not work. He is destitute of any 
disposition or will to labor. Can Mr. Lard say it is out 
of his power to work? Can he say it is not his duty? 
If he could make lazy men believe that, because they 
were unwilling to work, it was not their duty, they, I 
have no doubt, would thank }iim for the argument. But 
they can not believe it. Men carry about them the con- 
sciousness that an indisposition to do right is no excuse 
for them. Now, as indisposition to do the will of trod 
makes the Holy Spirit necessary, and as the Holy Spirit 
only changes the disposition, his agency is wholly inde- 
pendent of the question of human responsibility. The 
Holy Spirit does not make it the sinner's duty to turn 
to God, but he makes it his disposition. 

Now, Mr. Lard, I have given you light on this sub- 
ject. I hope you will walk in it. Just remember that 
we hold to the necessity of the agency of the Holy Spirit 
because of the indisposition of the human heart to holi- 
ness. Remember, that we hold that the Holy Spirit 
changes this indisposition. And remember that all this 
affects not human responsibility. 

I will close this section by noticing Mr. Lard's final 
paragraph : 

"'But why,' Mr. Jeter will doubtless ask, 'leave the 
sinner so free, and place the Christian, by the indwell- 
ing of the Spirit within him, under an influence affect- 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 95 

ing the freedom of his will?' We reply, that no such 
thing is done. The Christian has the will, but lacks the 
power; hence the Spirit helps his infirmity, without affect- 
ing his will. To aid the Christian to do what he is 
already more than willing to do, but lacks the power to 
do, is a very different thing from constraining the sin- 
ner to do against his will what he has the power to do. 
True, God works in the Christian, as we conceive, both 
will and deed; but then he works the will by motive — 
the only thing that can determine the will — and the 
deed by lending aid when the power is lacking. " 

All I have to say about this paragraph, at the pres- 
ent, is this : 

1. No one believes in " constraining the sinner to do 
against his will what he has the power to do." The will 
itself is influenced and brought cheerfully to acquiesce 
in duty. 

2. From Mr. Lard's representation here, Christianity 
inflicts a real and positive injury upon him who em- 
braces it. While a sinner, the man has the will and 
power to do what God requires of him ; but the moment 
he becomes a Christian he loses his power ! He is in- 
stantly encompassed with infirmities which, while he was 
a sinner, he knew nothing about! ! While he was a sin- 
ner he was independent of the Spirit of God; but now 
he is a poor, infirm creature, and the Holy Spirit must 
help him ! Mr. Lard must believe that the day of mir- 
acles is not yet passed. If power is what the Holy 
Spirit supplies the Christian with, he must do it by 
working a miracle. The sick of the palsy, when com- 
manded to take up his bed and walk, had not the power; 
the Holy Spirit supplied it by working a miracle. So 
the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda. If God has 
given a command to his people which they are "more 



96 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

than willing to do/' but which exceeds their power, and 
the Holy Spirit supplies the power, how does he do it? 
Mr. Lard must give us light on this subject. 

3. Mr. Lard destroys the responsibility of the Chris- 
tian. What I lack the power of doing, I am under no 
obligation to do. This I can prove by Mr. Lard. On 
the 259th page of his book, he writes thus : 

"It is not what men can not do, but what they can 
do, and have the opportunity of doing, that God requires 
at their hands. Where there is no ability, there is no 
responsibility." 

Reader, do not be too severe on Mr. Lard for writing 
so strangely. The book before us is the first he ever 
wrote, and it is exceedingly difficult for a man to write 
against the truth, without contradicting himself. 

§3. 

Mr. Lard words his third argument thus : 

"That the Spirit does not exert on the sinner a special 
influence to induce him to receive the truth and obey it, 
tvhen he is perfectly conscious he can and should do both 
without that influence." 

Now, reader, is not that a curious argument to prove 
that in conversion the Holy Spirit operates? Can you 
see any relevancy in the argument? Rather, is there 
not a studied incongruity? Let us put the argument 
and the proposition together, coupled by the conjunc- 
tion, therefore, and see how they look : 

" The Holy Spirit does not exert on the sinner a spe- 
cial influence to induce him to receive the truth, and obey 
it, when he is perfectly conscious he can and should dc 
both, without that influence" therefore, " the Holy Spirit 
operates in conversion through the truth only." Now, 
if that is not a strange therefore, I confess I know not 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 97 

what is. Reader, can both the argument and the prop- 
osition be true? Can it follow that the Holy Spirit 
operates in conversion, became the sinner is conscious 
he can and should both receive the truth and obey it, 
without the influence of the Spirit ? And if Mr. Lard 
really believes that in conversion the Holy Spirit does 
operate, how can he say, in his argument, he does not? 

I need not quote Mr. Lard's amplification of this 
third argument. The whole of it is a premium to a 
vaunting, arrogant, self-sufficient spirit. God has ever 
been jealous of his honor. He has, therefore, said : " He 
who exalteth himself shall be abased/'— Luke xviii: 14. 
And they who say : " We are rich, and increased in 
goods, and have need of nothing," are reminded that 
they "are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, 
and naked." — Rev. iii: 17. 

When the Midianites had oppressed Israel for seven 
years, God raised up Gideon to be their judge and de- 
liverer. He collected together, at the well of Harod, 
all the fighting men of Israel, to the number of thirty 
and two thousand. And now note what followed : 
"And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people are too 
many for me to give the Midianites into their hands;" 
now mark the reason : " Lest Israel vaunt themselves 
against me, saying, My own hand hath saved me." In 
order, therefore, to secure his own honor, the Lord re- 
duced their number to three hundred men, and in the 
hands of none of these did he allow any weapon of war. 
They took to the battle a trumpet, a pitcher, and a lamp, 
and they cried: "The sword of the Lord and of Gideon." 
Thus they were made to see that the victory came from 
God, and to give him the glory. Well, God claims the 
same honor in the conversion of a sinner. Hence the 
meaning of that significant question of the apostle: 
5 



98 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

" Who is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers by 
whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?' 
— 1 Cor. iii: 5. But Mr. Lard wishes the sinner to feel, 
and to say: "My own hand hath saved me/' He wants 
him to feel that his conversion is not at all owing to 
any influence of the Holy Spirit! 

The heavens declare the glory of God. We see his 
agency in all his works, in all places of his dominion. 
Not a sparrow falls to the ground without his notice. 
Then shall we not see him in the conversion of a soul? 
Shall the Spirit of God move upon the face of the waters, 
in the original creation, and bring order out of chaos, 
and yet be excluded from the second creation? Shall 
God's chiefest work bring him the least glory? No: 
the first lesson taught us in the school, not of Bethany, 
but of Christ, is : " Without me ye can do nothing." 
The first emotion of the renewed heart, is, " Glory to 
God ;" and its frankest confession is : " By the grace 
of God I am what I am." 

Mr. Lard, anticipating an objection that may very 
justly be made to what he has, in this argument, said, 
anticipates it thus : 

" But (may it not be said?) a man is as conscious of 
the ability to live the Christian life, as he is of the 
ability to believe the truth and obey it ; and that hence, 
by the preceding argument, the gift of the Holy Spirit 
is not necessary to the Christian. But this is not true. 
Indeed, it is a curious fact, that while men never doubt 
their ability to believe the truth and obey it, they ever 
doubt their ability to live the Christian life. It is pre- 
cisely in regard to this point that they do doubt their 
ability. Not only do they distrust themselves in regard 
to the Christian life, but they seem to feel half conscious 
that they are unequal to it ; and, hence, from this very 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 99 

distrust, many long decline entering upon it. We con 
elude, then, that instead of its being true that men are 
as conscious of the ability to live the Christian life, as 
they are to believe the truth and obey it, the very re- 
verse is true." 

1. In reply to the above, I should like to know, in 
the first place, whether the Christian life does not con- 
sist in believing the truth and obeying it? If it does not 
consist in this, in what does it consist? This, I am 
persuaded, comprehends the whole. I can not imagine 
that the Christian life consists in believing and obeying 
something else besides the truth I 

2. I can not think of any duty enjoined upon us as 
Christians, more difficult than those comprehended in 
conversion. No truth is presented to the Christian more 
difficult to believe, nor any duty more difficult to per- 
form, than those expressed by repentance and faith. 

3. But Mr. Lard, I presume, confines the phrase, 
" believe the truth and obey it," to what Mr. Campbell 
says is all that is required of the sinner for admission 
into the kingdom of heaven, namely : " The belief of 
one fact, and submission to one institution expressive of 
it." — Christ. Rest., p. 119. If this is what he means, 
then, perhaps, there may be some truth in what he says. 
For no rational man, with the evidences before him, can 
withhold his assent from this one fact. Indeed, there 
are very few among those whom we call sinners, who do 
not already believe it. Disbelievers in this fact are 
very rare. The conviction of it is so general that when 
one avers his disbelief of it, he is liable to have his 
veracity called in question. And, of course, when men 
believe this fact, they are able to be immersed, unless 
surrounded by very peculiar circumstances. And no 
one, I presume, will dispute that, if to believe this fact, 



100 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

and perform this act, are what Mr. Lard intends by 
" believing the truth and obeying it," that it is less dif- 
ficult than it is to live the Christian life. Indeed, it is 
a matter of serious doubt (it is certain they can not) 
whether such a one can live the Christian life at all. 
He has commenced wrong. The root of the matter is not 
in him. A right beginning is necessary to a right end- 
ing. Let us look into what constitutes a right be- 
ginning, and then we can clearly understand this. We 
shall also clearly see Mr. Lard's mistake in supposing 
the sinner has less difficult duties to perform than 
the Christian, and needs not, therefore, the aids of the 
Holy Spirit. 

The reader's attention is invited to the following pas- 
sages of Holy Writ: 

Luke xiv: 25-33 : "And there went great multitudes 
after him ; and he turned and said unto them, If any 
man come to me, and hate not his father, and his 
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sis- 
ters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my dis- 
ciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come 
after me, can not be my disciple. For which of you, 
intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and 
counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish 
it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and 
is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock 
him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able 
to finish. So, likewise, whosoever he be of you, that for- 
saketh not all that he hath, can not be my disciple." 

Now, here you see, a little more is required of the 
sinner, than a simple belief of one fact, and the per- 
formance of one act. Here something is required, that 
is not so easily done as Mr. Lard might imagine. A 
state of mind and affection is here required, that is as 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 101 

difficult of attainment as anything belonging to the 
Christian life. And he who can attain this without the 
aid of the Holy Spirit, will not be likely to need his 
aid in the performance of any subsequent duty, A love 
for the Savior, superior to that born to any earthly re- 
lation or object, ard even life itself, is required. With- 
out this, we are told, that discipleship is impossible. To 
begin without this, is to begin wrong, and certain failure 
will be the result. Can the sinner attain to the posses- 
sion and the exercise of this love for the Savior, without 
the Holy Spirit, Mr. Lard? Or would you insist on less 
rigid terms? Then, of course, you would insist, that 
one can be the Savior's disciple, without forsaking all 
that he hath, himself to the contrary notwithstanding ! 

The sentiment of the passage above quoted, is pre- 
sented in a variety of ways, in the New Testament. In 
Luke xii: 31, the Savior says: " But rather seek ye the 
kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added 
unto you." This " but rather " signifies, in preference 
to. Seek the kingdom of God in preference to what 
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink. In other words, 
seek it with the ichole heart. 

A great lesson is taught us in the case of the young 
ruler, Luke xviii : 18-22; Matt, xix : 16-21; and Mark 
x ; 17-21. This young man had strong desires to ob- 
tain eternal life. He came running and kneeling to 
Jesus. And some people might think he had made 
some progress as a believer. He called Jesus "Good 
Master." And his outward deportment was amiable. 
He had committed no gross immorality. But alas ! he 
loved the world. His heart was left behind with his 
wealth. And Jesus would not have him without his 
heart. "One thing thou lackest," said Jesus. Now, 
suppose this young man had gotten into the Church 



102 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

while lacking this one thing, would he have been in a 
condition to live the Christian life? Many persons, I 
fear, get into the Church lacking this one thing. In- 
deed, all get into the Campbellite Church, lacking it, if 
they have no more at the time of getting in, than the 
belief that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah, and im- 
mersion. 

It is worthy of remark, that this young ruler felt will- 
ing to do a great deal to obtain eternal life. He was 
willing to keep all the commandments repeated by the 
Savior. Indeed, he had kept them from his youth up. 
He was both willing and able to do all this. But when 
his idol was struck at — when he was required to sell all 
he had, and distribute the proceeds to the poor, his will 
failed him. He could not brook the idea of giving up 
all for Christ and eternal life. And, right here, the will 
of every sinner fails. What do you say, Mr. Lard? 
Now, suppose that this young man had possessed such 
strong affection for Jesus Christ, as would have caused 
him to give up all for him, would he have found any 
subsequent duty too difficult for him ? No, sir. Noth- 
ing is more difficult to attain, than this state of affec- 
tion for the Savior. And yet every converted person 
has attained to it. Every friend of God will sacrifice 
his Isaac at his command. 

AVhat the Savior required of this young man, was not 
peculiar. It was required of the apostles, and they said: 
" We have left all and followed thee." The same thing 
is required now. He who obeys the Gospel, exercises 
supreme love to the Savior. The kingdom of heaven is 
still like the hidden treasure, or the pearl of great price. 
To possess it, we must sell all we have, and buy it. — 
Matt, xiii: 44. 

It is clear from all the foregoing, that the chief stress 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 103 

is laid by the Savior, on a right state of the heart toward 
him and his kingdom. And now, unless Mr. Lard is 
prepared to assert that the sinner naturally has this, he 
can not pretend, for a moment, that the sinner is both 
willing and able to receive and obey the truth without 
the influence of the Holy Spirit, and that it is less dif- 
ficult to receive and obey the truth, than it is to live 
the life of the Christian. But for Mr. Lard to assert 
this, is for him to ignore human depravity, to justify 
the sinner in his natural state of mind toward God, and 
to contradict the whole tenor of the word of God. 

Now, reader, can you believe that Mr. Lard believes 
in the influence of the Holy Spirit in conversion at all? 
I do not believe that he does. He may iterate and re- 
iterate it in his proposition, but his argument will for- 
ever deny it. He admits the operation of the Spirit in 
the case of the Christian ; but what he admits in the 
case of the Christian, he denies in the case of the sinner. 
And, reader, does not Mr. Lard place the Christian in 
a worse condition than the sinner? The sinner, accord- 
ing to him, must have, can have nothing done for him, 
but to have the truth presented to his mind, with its 
proper evidence, and then he must be left free as the 
unfettered wind. No influence, internal or external, 
must be exerted in his case. But now the poor Chris- 
tian has the truth presented to him, and he is more 
than willing to receive it and obey it; but, alas! he has 
no power ! If this be so, one would think it would 
have been better for him to remain a sinner ! I had 
rather be where I am willing, able, free, lacking noth- 
ing, than to be where, however willing I am, I have 
no power ! 

No : common sense as well as the Bible, tells every 
man who will think, that it is more difficult, humanly 



10-1 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

speaking, to become a Christian, than to continue to hi 
a Christian. And as the Christian is still infirm, and 
therefore needs the aids of the Holy Spirit, much more 
must the sinner need them, when his whole head is sick, 
and his whole heart faint : when from the sole of the 
foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in him, 
but wounds and bruises, and putrefying sores, which 
have not been closed, nor bound up, nor mollified with 
ointment. 

§4. 

Mr. Lard states his fourth argument thus : 

"TJiat the Savior and his apostles always addressed their 
audiences as if their conversion depended alone on the truth 
they heard, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that it 
depended on the truth and something else." 

I must be allowed to ask the reader again if that is 
not a strange argument to prove that in conversion the 
Holy Spirit "operates?" Let us couple the "argument " 
and the "proposition" by "therefore," and see how they 
tally. 

" The Savior and his apostles always addressed their 
audiences as if their conversion depended, alone on the 
truth they heard, which is inconsistent with the hypothe- 
sis that it depended on the truth and something else." 
Therefore, in " conversion the Holy Spirit operates 
through the truth only." Now can it follow that the 
Holy Spirit operates through the truth in conversion 
because conversion depends alone on the truth ? If 
conversion depends alone on truth it can not at the same 
time depend on the operation of the Spirit through the 
truth. Conversion can not depend alone on the instru- 
ment, and yet at the same time depend on the agent. 

Mr. Lard, therefore, justly admits that as conversion 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 105 

depends on the truth alone, it can not " depend on the 
truth and something else." That is, it can not depend 
on the truth and the Holy Spirit: for the Holy Spirit is 
" something else." Hence his argument is antagonistic to 
his proposition. If Mr. Lard's argument is true, instead 
of proving his proposition that in conversion the Spirit 
operates, it proves the reverse! There seems to be a 
designed incongruity between the argument and the 
proposition. We must give up the proposition or reject 
the argument. We can not give up the proposition. 
We woulr! simply clip off the word "only" with which 
it terminates. We cheerfully reject the argument, not 
only because it is contrary to the proposition, but be- 
cause it is contrary to fact. 

Mr. Lard says: "The Savior and the apostles always 
addressed their audiences as if their conversion depended 
alone on the truth they heard." Now is this true? I 
say it is not. Now for the proof. 

In Matt, xiii : 1-8, we have the parable of the sower. 
This parable was spoken by the Savior to the " multi- 
tude." His disciples asked him, "Why speakest thou 
to them in parables?" He answered, "Because it is 
given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom 
of heaven, but to them it is not given." Now, Mr. Lard, 
did Jesus here address the multitudes "as if their con- 
version depended on the truth alone?" Then what 
does he mean by the word given ? Now the multitudes 
had the truth as well as the disciples, but the multi- 
tudes did not understand it as well as the disciples. 
Now why did they not? Let Mr. Lard answer this 
question consistently with his argument, if he can. 

Besides, the Savior shows here, that none receive the 
word, as it ought to be received, except such as receive 
it in a good and honest heart. 'Luke viii : 15.) Will 
5* 



106 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

Mr. Lard tell from whence such a heart comes ? Does it be- 
long naturally to man ? It does not. Does the mere pres- 
entation of the truth produce such a heart? No; the 
truth falls on the heart as the seed falls on the ground. 
But it can prepare the heart for its reception no more 
than the seed can prepare the ground for its reception. 
Hence the preparation of the heart in man is from — 
what ? from whom ? From the truth alone ? Nay, verily, 
from the Lord. (Prov. xvi : 1.) 

Again, John vi : 26-65, we have a discourse delivered 
by our Savior to the multitude who sought him, because 
they ate of the loaves and fishes, and were filled. In 
this discourse, instead of addressing them as if their 
conversion depended on the truth alone, the Savior said; 
" But I say unto you, that ye also have seen me and 
believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come 
to me. v Again : " No man can come to me except the 
Father, who hath sent me, draw him." And, again : 
" Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto 
me except it were given him of my Father." Now all 
these expressions show that the Savior regarded the 
conversion of the sinner as depending not on the truth 
alone, but also something else. And that something 
else he indicated by the terms "draw" and "given." 
These terms I shall not now undertake to explain. 

As the addresses of the Savior, so the addresses of the 
apostles show that they did not regard the conversion 
of sinners as depending on the truth alone. I will now 
cite but one passage in proof of this remark. 2 Cor. iv: 
3-7 : " But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that 
are lost : in whom the God of this world hath blinded 
the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the 
glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, 
should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 107 

but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants 
for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to 
shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to 
give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in 
the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in 
earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may 
be of God, and not of us." 

Here was the apostle's hope of success. He looked 
upon himself as a mere " earthen vessel," in which God 
had placed the treasure of the word of reconciliation, 
and that this had been done to show that the " excel- 
lency of the power " of that word, as seen in the conversion 
of sinners, was of God. So in another place the apostle 
says : " Our sufficiency is of God." 

These evidences are sufficient to show the fallacy of 
Mr. Lard's argument. The addresses of the Savior and 
the apostles are of such a character as to show that the 
truth is God's appointed means or instrument of con- 
version, but not such as to show that it alone, by itself, 
converts. 

I wish to notice some of Mr. Lard's remarks under 
his fourth reason. He says : 

" Now the case admits of but two solutions. Either 
the conversion of their audiences depended alone on the 
truth which they heard, or the truth was inadequate to 
effect it. If we accept the former of these solutions 
the preaching of the Savior and the apostles is easily 
accounted for. * * * But if we accept the latter 
of these solutions, certainly the preaching of the Savior 
and the apostles, if not what they preached, becomes 
a riddle of no ordinary intricacy. They knew that the 
truth was inadequate to effect conversion, if such is the 
case, and yet they preached it." 

If my limits would allow, I would like to transcribe 



108 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

the whole of what Mr. Lard has here said : but the 
above must suffice. 

Mr. Lard here very plainly shows that he does not 
believe in the agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion. 
He believes in the agency of the truth, and the truth 
alone. The truth with hirn is the only power, the only 
influence in conversion. Let hirn deny the agency of 
the Spirit in conversion, and he can see a "fitness and 
propriety in all the Savior and the apostles did." But 
compel him to believe that their preaching owed its 
efficiency and success to the influence of the Holy Spirit 
upon the sinner's heart, and instantly their preaching 
"becomes" to him "a riddle of no ordinary intricacy!" 
Now, I can not see that there is less fitness and pro- 
priety in their preaching, if the agency of the Holy 
Spirit is admitted, than there would be if it is denied. 
Does it follow that because an instrumentality can not, 
by itself, succeed, there is no fitness or propriety in it? 
If so, then what fitness or propriety in the priests blow- 
ing the ram's horns around the walls of Jericho ? 

Mr. Lard's argument presents the matter in this 
light : We must either dishonor the Holy Spirit, or we 
must dishonor Christ and his apostles. If we contend 
that conversion depends on the truth alone, we honor 
Christ and his apostles by showing a fitness and pro- 
priety in their preaching ; but, at the same time, we dis- 
honor the Holy Spirit by denying his agency in this 
his greatest work ! But, on the other hand, if we are 
jealous of the Spirit's honor, and contend that he prepares 
the heart for the reception of truth, and thus causes it 
to germinate and produce fruit, why, forsooth, we dis- 
honor Christ and his apostles ! ! At once their preach- 
ing loses its "naturalness," and becomes an "intricate 
riddle ! ! " 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 109 

Let me try this reasoning on a few facts. Mark ii : 
11 : "I say unto thee, Arise and take up thy bed, and 
go thy way into thine house." Here the Savior addressed 
a palsied man : one physically unable to obey his com- 
mand. He spake when he knew that mere words could 
avail him nothing : where, therefore, a Divine efficiency 
was necessary. Now shall I say that either the cure of 
this man depended on the truth he heard, or the truth 
was inadequate to effect it? And then add, "If we 
accept the former of these solutions, the words of the 
Savior are easily accounted for? We then have reason not 
simply in what he said, but also for his saying it. But 
if we accept the latter of these solutions, then certainly 
the Savior's speaking, if not what he spoke, becomes a 
riddle of no ordinary intricacy? Were I to say this, 
would you not understand me as intending to ascribe 
the cure of this man to the words alone, to the exclusion 
of the Divine efficiency which attended them ? Or as 
charging the Savior with folly for using words where 
mere words would be of no avail? 

Take another example. John v : 8 : " Rise, take up 
thy bed and walk.' ; These words were spoken to an 
impotent man. Were there a fitness and propriety in 
them ? Did the Savior believe that the cure of this 
man depended on the words he uttered? Did he pro- 
nounce an intricate riddle ? 

Take one more example. Luke iv : 35, 36 : " And 
Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and com* 
out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in 
the midst he came out of him, and hurt him not. And 
they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, say- 
ing, What a word is this: for with authority and power he 
commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out." 
Now, Mr. Lard, were there fitness and propriety here? 



110 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Look at all the examples. His word cured the palsy, 
his word gave strength to the impotent man ; his word 
cast out devils. And so his word converts. But none 
of these things was done by his word alone. The agency 
of the Holy Spirit was present. 

When the Jews said: " This fellow doth not cast out 
devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils," the 
Savior let them know he did it by the Spirit of God, and 
that their charge was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 
But Mr. Lard, though he does not say the Savior con- 
verts men by Beelzebub, denies that he does it by the 
Spirit of God! Is he not liable to a similar charge? 

But it may be objected that the examples I have 
brought forward are not parallel to that of the sinner. 
I answer if they are not parallel, they are analogous. 
In the cases I have presented a physical impediment 
had to be overcome, except that of casting out devils. 
In the case of the sinner a moral impediment has to be 
overcome. A fixed indisposition of heart is as effectual 
a preventive to voluntary action as is a physical ina- 
bility. He who is unable can not act. He who is 
unwilling will not act. And just as the Holy Spirit 
wrought in the paralytic and impotent man strength 
to do the command of the Savior, so he works in the 
human heart the will to do his good pleasure. (Phil, 
ii: 13.) 

But it would seem from what Mr. Lard has said not 
only that the preaching of the Savior and his apostles, 
if the influence of the Holy Spirit is necessary to con- 
version, is an intricate riddle, but also that his conduct 
can not be vindicated. " They knew that the truth was 
inadequate to effect conversion, and yet they preached 
the truth. * * * They knew that their audiences 
could not receive the truth ; and yet they denounced 



Ill 

condemnation against them for rejecting it." This, Mr, 
Lard thinks, is awfully absurd. But, be it remembered, 
that here Mr. Lard misrepresents our views. 1. He 
seems to charge us with holding that there is an inade- 
quacy in the truth itself to convert, which inadequacy 
must be remedied by the Holy Spirit. We hold no 
such thing. If the " wayside/' or " thorny ground/' 
or "stony places," does not produce fruit, the cause is 
not in the seed that falls upon it. The cause is in the 
ground. 2. He seems also to suppose that we regard 
the sinner as laboring under some physical or mental 
inability to obey the truth. We entertain no such 
views. The barrier which the sinner presents to the 
truth, and which must be overcome by the Spirit, is that 
of aversion to the truth itself. Hence it can not by any 
means be pleaded as an excuse for the sinner. 

Mr. Lard's objection here is as much against God as 
against us. In Ezek. iii : 4-7, we read : " And he said 
unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of 
Israel, and speak my words unto them. For thou art 
not sent to a people of a strange speech and of a hard 
language, but to the house of Israel ; not to many people 
of a strange speech and of a hard language, whose words 
thou canst not understand. Surely had I sent thee to 
them, they would have hearkened unto thee. But the 
house of Israel will not hearken unto thee ; for they 
will not hearken unto me : for all the house of Israel are 
impudent and hard-hearted." 

Now, here, you see, God sent Ezekiel to the house of 
Israel to preach to them, notwithstanding he knew they 
would not hearken. Their impudence and hard-heart- 
edness presented an effectual barrier to the truth. Now, 
how could God consistently do this? How could he send 
Ezekiel when he knew the house of Israel would not hear 



112 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

him? Answer these questions and you answer Mr. Lard 
Whether Mr. Lard understands it or not, it is true on 
the one hand that no man can come unto Jesus except 
the Father draw him, while it is true on the other hand 
that the sinner is to blame for not coming. The divid- 
ing line of this question gives God all the glory for 
man's salvation, while at the same time it acquits him of 
all blame for man's damnation. He who is saved must 
thank his God, he who is lost must blame himself. 

Mr. Lard winds up his fourth argument thus: "Let 
any one who is not blinded by a false system of re- 
ligion attentively study the speeches of the Savior and 
the apostles, and nothing will strike him more clearly 
than this, — that they delivered their speeches precisely 
as other men do, assuming the ability of their audiences 
to understand and receive what they said, without any- 
thing more than simply saying it, and leaving them to 
abide the consequences of rejecting it. This is the 
view that chiefly strikes that elemental common sense 
with which all are endowed ; and it is not until that 
common sense has been completely stultified by some 
pernicious theory of religion, that men abandon this 
view, and blindly adopt one which neither sense nor 
Revelation sanctions.'/ 

I will reply to the above and close this number. 

1. It is a strange paragraph to be written by a man who 
pretends to believe that the Holy Spirit operates in con- 
version. Look at the emphasized sentence and then 
decide. Does the man who wrote that sentence believe 
in the influence or " operation " of the Holy Spirit in 
conversion ? 

2. May we not assume the ability of an audience to 
understand and receive what we say, without assuming 
their disposition to do it? Why is Mr. Lard always 



jeter's campbellism exposed. IIS 

confounding ability and disposition? In John ix : 43, 
Jesus asks the Jews the question, " Why do ye not un- 
derstand my speech ?" and he answers: " Even because 
ye can n.ot hear my word." Now what was the 

matter with these Jews, Mr. Lard ? Did the Savior 
here assume their ability to understand and receive what 
he said, without anything more than simply saying it? 
Then why does he say they did not understand because 
they could not hear? You know the Savior expresses a 
moral indisposition. 

3. This last paragraph of Mr. Lard's, when stripped 
of its drapery, amounts to this : He who maintains that 
a sinner is not converted by the truth alone, but by the 
operation of the Holy Spirit through the truth, is "blind- 
ed by a false system of religion." Then he who main- 
tains Mr. Lard's proposition, is blinded by a false system 
of religion : for it asserts that in conversion the Holy 
Spirit operates through the truth. If in conversion the 
Holy Spirit operates through the truth, conversion is not 
to be ascribed to the truth alone, but also to the operation 
of the Spirit through it. 

4. If no man abandons the view that men have the 
"ability [disposition] to understand and receive" the 
truth "without anything more than simply saying it," 
until his " common sense has been completely stultified 
by some pernicious theory of religion," I would like to 
know how that "some pernicious theory of religion" 
came into being. Who originated it? If no man aban- 
dons Mr. Lard's rational view of this subject until his 
common sense has been " stultified by some pernicious 
theory of religion," who started the pernicious theory? 
If Mr. Lard's argument is true, I can not see how any 
pernicious theory could come into being. If no man 
can abandon Mr. Lard's view until his common sense 



114 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

is stultified by some pernicious theory of religion, I can 
not see how any pernicious theory of religion could orig- 
inate ; for he who originated the pernicious theory of 
religion, must have abandoned Mr. Lard's view in the 
first place ; but that he could not do until his common 
sense was stultified. But how could it be stultified 
when there was no pernicious theory of religion to stul- 
tify it? I tell you, Mr. Lard has given us here a "rid- 
dle of no ordinary intricacy," and it will take the wife 
of more than one Samson to explain it. 

§5 ; 

Mr. Lard's fifth argument is stated thus : 

" In no land or age has there ever yet occurred a single 
case of conversion without the truth: a fact which proves 
that conversion is effected only through the truth" 

In examining this argument, I deem it necessary only 
to notice the force of " a fact which proves that conver- 
sion is effected only through the truth." The force of 
this sentence, in the estimation of Mr. Lard, is, to ex- 
clude the Holy Spirit as the agent in conversion. The 
following paragraph shows this: "The light of the solar 
system would seem to depend not more absolutely on the 
presence of the sun, than does conversion on the pres- 
ence of the truth. This fact is of itself enough to settle 
forever the truth of our position. Indeed, we should find 
it difficult to establish the connection between cause and 
effect, if conversion is not here shown to depend on the truth 
alone." 

Now, I do ask the reader, with all the earnestness it 
is possible for a lover of the truth to feel, if Mr. Lard 
does not here exclude the Holy Spirit from the work of 
conversion ? I know that this is a charge to which many 
Campbellites plead not guilty, and which the world are 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 115 

slow to believe. And it is a charge that nothing bu* 
the force of evidence and a sense of duty could induce 
me to make. 

That Mr. Lard's fifth argument does so teach, I will 
show by re-writing it, and substituting the word " Spirit" 
for the word "truth/ 1 wherever the latter word occurs: 

"In no land or age has there ever yet occurred a sin- 
gle case of conversion without the Holy Spirit; a fact 
that proves that conversion is effected only through the 
Holy Spirit." 

"The light of the solar system would seem to depend 
not more absolutely on the presence of the sun, than 
does conversion on the presence of the Holy Spirit, 
This fact is of itself enough to settle forever the truth of 
our position. Indeed, we should find it difficult to estab- 
lish the connection between cause and effect, if conversion 
is not here shown to depend on the Holy Spirit alone" 

Now, were I to write as above, would not Mr. Lard 
and every Campbellite in the land, charge me with ex- 
cluding the "truth" from conversion ? Would they not 
interpret the phrase, " Spirit alone," as necessarily ex- 
cluding the truth? Then must I not interpret the 
phrase, "truth alone," as necessarily excluding the Spir- 
it? I charge that this fifth argument of Mr. Lard's does 
exclude the Spirit from the work of conversion, and that, 
hence, it, like all its predecessors, is antagonistic to his 
" proposition." 

§ 6 - 

His sixth argument is stated thus : 

" That the Apostle James ascribes conversion to the truth, 
and to that alone, which forbids the belief that it is effected 
by the truth and something more." 

Mr. Lard adds: " The passage on which we base this 
argument is the following : i Of his own (the Father's) 



116 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

will begat he us with the word of truth.' " — Jamea 
i: 18. 

Mr. Lard makes some remarks here with which I 
agree most cordially, namely: 1. The term rendered 
here "begat/' is synonymous with the term, rendered 
elsewhere, " born." 2. That what this passage ascribes 
to God, was, in reality, effected by the Spirit : for I have 
already shown that the Spirit is God. 

But now let me ask how it is possible for this decla- 
ration of the Apostle James to be made to support Mr. 
Lard's argument, which he professedly builds upon it? 
Does James here ascribe conversion to the truth alone? 
Reader, you know he does not. He ascribes it to God, 
and mentions the truth simply as the instrument of ef- 
fecting it. 

This Mr. Lard seems also to understand, for he says, 
" The passage contains the answer to two questions : 1. 
Are we begotten by the Father ? 2. And if so, by what 
means? To the first question the passage replies, we 
are begotten by the Father. To the second it replies, 
we are begotten by the truth." Then Mr. Lard ought 
to understand that the " passage" does not support his 
argument. It does not " ascribe conversion to the truth 
alone" as the argument asserts. 

Mr. Lard further adds: "Here, then, in the present 
passage, the truth of our proposition is asserted, actu- 
ally and unequivocally asserted, in language as clear, 
strong, and pointed as human ingenuity can invent, or 
human speech supply." Yes, Mr. Lard, the truth of 
your "proposition" is asserted with the exception of the 
word "only," with which it terminates. Your "propo- 
sition" asserts, that in conversion the Spirit operates : the 
passage asserts that he " begets." But he can not beget 
without operating; therefore, the passage and your prop- 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 117 

osition agree. But remember, that your proposition is 
one thing, and your argument quite another. The pas- 
sage smiles upon your proposition, but it scowls at your 
argument. 

Mr. Lard continues: "If its truth is not asserted — if, 
in other words, it is not asserted that conversion is not 
effected by the truth — what form of speech, we ask, 
could assert it? The reply is, None." Now, why did 
not Mr. Lard say, "If, in other words, it is not asserted 
that conversion is effected by God ivith the truth? 11 
Was it because he wished to keep God out of view in 
this his final remark, and thus divert the reader's at- 
tention from the agent to the instrument, that it might 
fill the entire field of his vision, and thus establish, not 
Mr. Lard's proposition, but his peculiar doctrine, that 
the truth alone. produces conversion? 
. In what follows, Mr. Lard draws a contrast between 
what he supposes Mr. Jeter would say, and what " Mr. 
Campbell and his brethren maintain," on this subject. 
In this effort Mr. Lard shows, evidently, that he does 
not understand us. But it is to be presumed that he 
understands Mr. Campbell and himself. I will quote 
in extenso, that the reader may have the full benefit of 
all he says : 

" But Mr. Jeter will doubtless say, c I admit that the 
Spirit ordinarily effects conversion through the truth, 
but maintain that in doing so, it exerts through the 
truth a peculiar vital influence not inherent in it — that 
a virtue which is no part of the truth, goes out of the 
Spirit through the truth into the soul, converting it.' 
In other words, he will doubtless maintain, that as 
a spark of electricity discharged from a point passes 
through the atmosphere into an attracting object, so an 
essential, quickening influence being discharged from 



118 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

the Spirit passes through the truth into the soul, con- 
verting it/' 

I, of course, will not undertake to answer for Mr. 
Jeter, but I have no idea that he would say any such 
thing as the above. I never heard of any one who sup- 
posed that the truth was between the Spirit and the sin- 
ner, as the atmosphere is between a point from whence 
a spark of electricity is discharged and an attracting 
object! This would represent us as maintaining that 
the Holy Spirit, or rather an influence discharged from 
the Holy Spirit, passes through the truth on its way to 
the soul, for the purpose of converting it; but that it is 
not the truth, but this influence by which the Spirit 
converts : just as it is not the atmosphere, but the spark, 
by which the electric fluid splits the oak. We maintain 
no sifch thing. We maintain that the truth is that by 
icliicli the Spirit converts. Just as the sword is that by 
which the soldier kills his enemy. I hope Mr. Lard will 
hereafter understand us. 

Mr. Lard, after thus misrepresenting our views, (un- 
intentionally, of course,) asks, " But where, we ask, in 
the first place, is the evidence that this is true ? soberly, 
we ask, where ? " I ask where is the evidence we ever 
maintained such views? soberly, I ask, where? They 
are Aot found in Jeter's Review of Campbellism. Mr. 
Lard adds : " This is precisely the point at which the 
difference between him and us begins to show itself." I 
would rather say — this is precisely the point at which 
Mr. Lard has greatly misrepresented us. 

But now Mr. Lard gives what " Mr. Campbell and his 
brethren maintain." Let us be all attention : for that 
is what we have been anxious to know. He says, "We 
maintain that the truth, as such — that is, in the truth 
as divine, as of the Spirit — resides the power by which 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 119 

in all cases the Spirit effects conversion : a power which, 
as we conceive, can not be intensified and the human 
will left free, and which, for that reason, is all tne in- 
fluence that can be admitted to be present in conversion. 
We go further, and maintain that it is as much the law 
of conversion that it shall be effected by the truth, as it 
is of reproduction that an oak shall spring from an 
acorn and not from a miracle ; and, further, that we are 
no more at liberty to suppose the Spirit absent from the 
work of conversion, from the fact that it is the law of 
conversion that it shall result from the truth and not 
from something else, than we are to suppose the Creator 
absent from the work of reproduction, that an oak shall 
spring from an acorn and not from a miracle. " 

Now, do we understand Mr. Lard? If we understand 
him, his meaning is this: There is that in the acorn 
which produces the oak; so there is that in the truth 
which produces conversion. And the Spirit now con- 
verts the sinner with the truth as God produces the oak 
with the acorn. Then, of course, Mr. Lard considers 
the human heart as susceptible of acting upon the truth 
to cause it to germinate, as the soil is to act upon the 
acorn. Let me run out the analogy a little further, and 
I would have no serious objection to it. Say, just as 
the acorn is used to produce the oak, so is the truth 
used to convert the sinner. But, as the acorn can not 
germinate unless it fall into good ground, and is watered 
by the rains of heaven and warmed by the genial rays 
of the sun, so the truth must be " received into a good 
and honest heart" and watered and warmed by the in- 
fluences of the Spirit, to produce a " new creature in 
Christ Jesus." What do you say, Mr. Lard? Will you 
take the human heart just as it is, and say it is good 
enough? If not, your analogy is imperfect. But if you 



120 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

do, you overlook human depravity. And if you do, no 
wonder you deny the agency of the Spirit. 

But there is one point in this specification of " Mr. 
Campbell and his brethren's views," which claims special 
attention. It is this : " In the truth resides the power 
by which the Spirit effects conversion : a power which 
can not be intensified and the human will be left free, 
and which for that reason, is all the influence that can 
be permitted to be present in conversion. Then, of 
course, all the influence that is present in conversion is 
now residing in the truth. Then, of course, the efficiency 
of the truth is now in it, and would be there, if there 
was now no Holy Spirit ! Just as the explosive power of 
gunpowder would remain in it, if the inventor or maker 
were dead. Yea, more; it is now beyond the power of 
the Holy Spirit to add an iota to the power and effi- 
ciency of his own truth without infringing upon the 
freedom of the human will! Then, of course, we hence- 
forth expect nothing from the Holy Spirit. He has 
done all he can do. It is superfluous to invoke his aid. 
He has given his word to his ministers. Now let them 
publish it, and let him retire from the field ! Mr. Camp- 
bell, Mr. Lard, etat major, will deliver their speeches, 
assuming the ability of their audiences to understand 
and receive what they say without anything more than 
simply saying it, and say to the Holy Spirit, " Hands 
off! You must not interfere, or you will destroy the 
free agency of these sinners ! ! ! " 

I must remind the reader that, notwithstanding Mr. 
Lard argues as here seen, his professed object is to prove 
that in conversion the Holy Spirit operates ! 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 121 

§7. 

Mr. Lard states his seventh argument thus: 

" The Apostle Peter ascribes conversion, or being born 
again, to the truth and to that alone, as the means by which 
it had been effected, and that, therefore, we are not at lib- 
erty to ascribe it, even in part, to another and unknown 
cause" 

Now, reader, is not that a singular argument to prove 
that in conversion the Holy Spirit operates? If by Peter 
conversion is ascribed to the truth alone, and if, there- 
fore, we are not at liberty to ascribe it even in part to 
another cause, how can we ascribe it to the Holy Spirit? 
We can not ascribe conversion to the truth alone and 
at the same time ascribe it, even in part, to the Holy 
Spirit. We may ascribe conversion to the truth and the 
Holy Spirit both, but if we do, we must leave out the 
word " alone/' We must predicate the word "alone" 
of neither. 

But let us follow Mr. Lard through the amplification 
of this argument also. The words of the apostle to 
which Mr. Lard alludes, are : " Being born again, not of 
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of 
God." — 1 Peter i : 23. Now do these words of Peter 
justify us in ascribing conversion to the truth alone f 
Do they require us to exclude the Holy Spirit? How 
came Mr. Lard to overlook the preceding verse? "See- 
ing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth 
through the Spirit,' 1 etc. Does not conversion include 
"obeying the truth?" Then that much of it, at least, 
is, according to Peter, through the Spirit. And though 
he adds, u being born again, * * * by the word of 
God," he does not say, " by the word of God alone" 

Mr. Lard is the most singular writer I ever read after 
6 



122 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

He writes first one way, and then another. He blows 
hot and cold alternately, as it suits him. Now he is 
maintaining his proposition, and anon he is undermin- 
ing it ! Here follows a good orthodox specimen : 

" The term, as employed in the present passage, ex- 
presses precisely what is meant by the expression, 'born 
of the Spirit;' and the effect which it denotes is to be 
ascribed to the Spirit as the author of it. Consequently 
we have now to determine, not what effect was produced, 
but by what power it was produced ; not what agent was 
employed, but with what instrument it (he) wrought. 
In a word, the effect is known, and we have now to 
seek the instrumental cause from which it resulted." 

I rejoice to ascribe conversion to the Spirit as its 
author, and I acknowledge the truth to be the instru- 
mental cause from which it results. Now, is it not a 
pity we can not let the matter rest here? We have as- 
certained that conversion is ascribed to the Holy Spirit- 
as the agent, and to the truth as the instrument, and 
with this I am content. But I must give the reader 
what follows, though it spoils all the above: 

" We have an effect, A ; which is supposed to result 
from two causes, B and C. We first try to produce the 
effect with B, and fail : we then try C, and fail. In this 
case the effect is held to be a joint result from both B 
and C. Or, we try to produce the effect with B, and 
fail : we then try C, and succeed. In this case the effect 
is held to result from C alone, and B is excluded." 

Well, what now, Mr. Lard? Will you say A is con- 
version effected by B and C? That B is the agent, and 
C is the instrument? Or will you say it is effected by 
C alone, and thus exclude B? If you do, you will stul- 
tify all you have said above. But go on, we will hear 
your application : 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 123 

" Mr. Jeter maintains that this effect resulted from two 
causes/' Well, did you not just now maintain the same 
thing? Did we not understand you just now as saying, 
that this effect " is to be ascribed to the Spirit as its 
author," and to the word of God as the "instrumental 
cause ?" And now do you intend to take it back? You 
say: 

" Mr. Jeter says the effect results from the truth and 
an influence distinct from and above the truth." But 
you " deny that the latter cause had any hand in pro- 
ducing the effect." Then why do you talk about believ- 
ing in the agency of the Holy Spirit? You say: "Let 
now the difference between us be decided by Divine 
authority/' Well, that is just what we intend to do. 
"How, then, was the effect produced?" Say yourself. 
"The Bible answers, By the word of God." Yes; but 
does the Bible say by the word of God alone f It does 
not. How then can you say that the effect resulted from 
the first cause alone? And if it did, how can you say 
your "position is true?" Your position! What is 
your position ? That the truth alone converts, as here 
affirmed? No: it is that in conversion the Holy Spirit 
operates through the truth — not that the truth alone 
operates. 

After ascribing conversion to the truth alone, I am 
not surprised that Mr. Lard should try to deter us from 
charging upon him the "word alone system." He says: 

"We are not ignorant, however, of the impotent 
clamor which Mr. Jeter and a few bigots will raise 
against these conclusions. This, they will cry in the 
ears of the multitude deep-mired in the ' ditch,' is the 
1 word alone system.' Many a gracious compliment will 
be lavished upon the sectarian divinity, Orthodoxy ; 
and her smiles will be deemed more than a compensa- 



124 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

tion for all failures to defend her cause. But we beg tc 
tell these gentlemen, that this is not the 'word alone 
system.' The 'word alone system ' conceives the Spirit 
to be ever absent from the work of conversion; this sys- 
tem conceives it to be ever present: the 'word alone 
system ' conceives the truth to be as destitute of vital 
force as the words of an absolete almanac; this system 
conceives the truth, since of the Spirit, to teem with an 
intense quickening power, but ever resident in the truth 
as Divine : the ' word alone system ' is false ; this sys- 
tem is true." 

I have made this long quotation from Mr. Lard, that 
he may not complain of being garbled. I can not, how- 
ever, regard Mr. Lard as successful either in describing 
the ' word alone system,' or freeing himself from the 
charge of maintaining it. 

1. He says : " The ' word alone system ' conceives the 
Spirit to be ever absent from the work of conversion ; 
this system conceives it to be ever present." "Well, 
what of that? If you do have him ever present, you 
won't let him do anything. You tell him to his face, 
he can not increase the efficiency of his own truth with- 
out infringing on the freedom of the human will ! 

2. You say the "word alone system" "conceives the 
truth to be as destitute of vital force as the words of an 
obsolete almanac." This can not be. It is impossible 
for any man, it seems to me, to believe the word alone 
can convert, and yet at the same time believe it to be 
so destitute of vital force. This would be to affirm its 
efficiency and deny it at the same time. No, sir; the 
"word alone system" is that system that denies any 
other power but that of the truth to be present in con- 
version. And that is what your system denies. Though 
you talk about an " intense quickening power," you 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 125 

predicate it of the truth alone ; you say it K is ever 
resident in the truth. " And now the truth, with you, 
does its quickening, converting work, independently of 
the Holy Spirit. This, sir, is the "word alone system/' 

§8. 

Mr. Lard states his eighth argument thus : 

" Belief in Christ, and being born of God, are identic- 
al ; and that, since belief in Christ depends on the truth 
alone, therefore, being born of God, or conversion, depends 
on the truth alone." 

Here I must be allowed to ask again, is not that a 
strange argument to prove that in conversion the Spirit 
operates? If conversion depends on the truth alone, I 
again say, it can not, at the same time, depend on the 
Holy Spirit. 

The text on which he bases this argument, is the fol- 
lowing : " Whoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, 
is born of God." — 1 John v : 1. How does Mr. Lard 
make this text support his argument? Well, in this 
way. He says: "From this passage it is most clear, 
either, that to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and to be 
born of God, are identical, or, that they are so insepa- 
rably connected, that we can not produce the former, 
without, at the same time, and by the same means, pro- 
ducing the latter. * * * Whatever influences, 
then, will produce belief in Christ, will also produce the 
effect — if belief itself is not that effect — denoted by the 
expression 'born of God/ But the meaning of this ex- 
pression is the acceptation in which we are now taking 
the term ' conversion.' With the view, therefore, of 
ascertaining on what immediate cause conversion de- 
pends, we shall now proceed to ascertain on what imme- 
diate cause belief or faith depends." 



126 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Mr. Lard then goes on to state the cause on which 
faith depends thus : 

" The passage we first adduce, is the following, from 
the parable of the Sower : ' Now the parable is this : the 
seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are they 
that hear : then cometh the devil and taketh away the 
word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and 
be saved.' " 

Here, Mr. Lard thinks, is proof that faith depends on 
the word of God. He thinks that Satan, wishing to 
prevent the faith and salvation of the wayside hearers, 
would, of course, catch away the cause on which they 
depend. But does Mr. Lard believe that the wayside 
men would have believed and been saved but for Satan? 
How came the word to lie exposed? The ground was 
faulty. The heart of these men was not right. Mr. Lard 
quotes from Luke viii : 12. Why did he not collate 
Matt, xiii : 19? " When any one heareth the word of 
the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the 
wicked one," etc. Will Mr. Lard contend that the word 
will produce faith in any one who does not understand 
it ? Something more than the bare word is necessary 
to faith. 

Now, I wish the reader to bear in mind that I do not 
deny that faith and salvation depend on the word of 
God. All I deny is, that they depend on the word of 
God alone — the word of God by itself. They depend on 
the word of God only as the means employed by the Holy 
Spirit to produce them. 

But the reader may ask, is this not what Mr. Lard 
means? I will let him speak for himself: " But we are 
not quite done with the wayside men. Mr. Jeter says, 
The influence for which he contends, is exerted c ordi- 
narily ' through the truth. Is it now exerted on the 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 127 

wayside men, or is it not? Of course, it must be one 
or the other. Suppose, then, it is exerted. Still, the 
truth is taken away ; but when the truth is taken away, 
what becomes of the influence? Does it remain? If 
so, where is the advantage of it? for the men are still 
infidels. But suppose it is not exerted. Still, there 
remains in the word a power fully adequate to produce 
belief without it; hence it is not necessary. n Here you 
have it. Of course Mr. Lard believes that the word 
would have produced faith in the wayside men independ- 
ent of any influence from the Holy Spirit, had it not 
been for the devil ! Yet, the Savior says emphatically, 
they did not understand the word ! 

Mr. Lard next quotes, as a proof text, Rom. x : 17 : 
u So, then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 
word of God." Mr. Lard thinks that from this passage: 
" Since it asserts strictly that faith comes by hearing 
the truth, the implication is, that it comes in no other 
way." "For the instant," says he, "we show that faith 
results from the truth, and some other cause, say ' an 
influence distinct from and above the truth,' that in- 
stant we cast a doubt over the passage." Do we, indeed? 
Of course, then, we must exclude the Holy Spirit: for 
he is a " cause distinct from and above the truth ! " 
And yet, Mr. Lard is arguing to prove that he operates! 

Let us hear Mr. Lard a little further: " 'But, I grant/ 
Mr. Jeter will say, ' that faith comes by hearing the 
word of God, but maintain that the Spirit must aid the 
sinner to hear — that is, to understand and receive the 
truth.' But of the truth of this there is no evidence 
It is a mere creation of the human fancy, countenanced 
neither by reason nor the Bible. It grew out of that 
inveterate depravity insisted on by Mr. Jeter, and which 



128 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

is itself a dream. Hence, the dream became parent tc 
the fancy, which is the true account of both." 

Hear that, reader? The doctrine, then, that the Holy 
Spirit produces faith through or by means of the word 
is a fancy, is it? A dream, is it? And yet, Mr. Lard's 
position is, that the Spirit operates! But what is Mr. 
Lard's conclusion? Hear it: "We conclude, then, that 
belief in Christ, and being born of God, are identical ; 
and since belief in Christ is shown by the preceding 
premises to depend on the truth alone, that the truth 
alone is that on which depends being born of God, or 
conversion." 

Now, reader, how does this conclusion harmonize with 
Mr. Lard's position : " In conversion the Holy Spirit 
operates through the truth ? " I must again say, if con- 
version depends on the truth alone, it can not depend on 
the operation of the Spirit through the truth. 

Now, reader, dropping Mr. Lard, let us tarry a little 
while longer, and consult for ourselves this celebrated 
saying of the apostle. Let us ask ourselves the question, 
did Paul intend to teach, that faith, and consequently 
conversion, depend on the truth alone? Examine the 
context. Let us read from the 16th verse : " But they 
have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Isaiah saith, Lord, 
who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh 
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I 
say, have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound 
went into all the earth, and their words unto the end 
of the world." 

Then, Mr. Lard, why did they not all believe ? JTou 
say faith depends on the word of God alone. Well, Paul 
says, they have all heard. But he says, they have not 
all obeyed. Now, how is this? The 21st verse answers: 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 129 

" But to Israel he saith, 'All day long have I stretched 
forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying 
people.' ' Now, if faith is ever produced in such a 
people as these, will it be done by the word alone? 
The word alone has already failed. A few, however, 
believed. Who were they? "A remnant according to 
the election of grace." — Rom. xi: 5. And the time will 
come when "all Israel shall be saved." Yes, this " dis- 
obedient and gainsaying people " shall have " ungodli- 
ness turned from" them. But how will this be done? 
By the word alone? Let Kom. xi: 26, answer. "And 
so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There 
shall come out of Zion the deliverer, and shall turn away 
ungodliness from Jacob." — Compare Isa. lix: 20, 21, and 
Psalm xiv : 7. Does all this look as if Paul thought 
that faith and conversion depend on the truth alone? 

When Paul says, "Faith cometh by hearing," and then 
immediately adds: "But I say, have they not heard? 
yes, verily," etc., does he not forbid the conclusion that 
a simple hearing of the truth is all that is necessary to 
faith ? There is a meaning in the word hearing, that 
must not be overlooked. There are those " who have 
ears but hear not." In one sense they hear, in another 
they do not. All Israel had heard, in one sense, yet 
not in that sense that produces faith. Had they heard 
in that sense, they would have come to Christ. In 
John vi: 45, the Savior says: "It is written in the 
prophets, 'And they shall be all taught of God.' Every 
one that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, 
cometh unto me." Do you believe that, Mr. Lard? 
Then, of course, you believe that all who do not come 
to Christ, have not heard in that sense : and, therefore, 
not in the sense that produces faith. Then, how cac 

6* 



130 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

you feel justified in saying faith depends on the truth 
alone? 

Why is it men have ears to hear, and hear not? The 
prophet answers : "Behold, their ear is uncircumcised 
and they can not hearken : behold, the word of the Lord 
is unto them a reproach ; they have no delight in it." 
— Jer. vi : 10. From where do they get the hearing ear 
and the understanding heart? From the word alone? 
Does that which is heard give the hearing? Let Moses 
answer : " Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to 
perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this 
day." — Deut. xxix: 4. 

The truth is, God not only gives the word which is 
to be heard, but also the ear to hear it ; and thus he 
makes faith and salvation depend on the Word and 
Spirit both. 

§9. 
Mr. Lard states his ninth argument thus : 
"Our ninth argument ft, that the original of John iii : 
8, in its most natural sense — that which it yields by the 
soundest rules of interpretation — teaches, that being bom of 
the Spirit (or conversion^ is effected by hearing, or receiving 
the truth." 

Well, I would say, in reply, no one disputes that 
being born of the Spirit, or conversion, is effected by 
hearing or receiving the truth. Of course there can be 
no birth of the Spirit, or conversion, where the truth is 
not heard or received. But that is not the question. 
The question is, can the truth be heard or received in- 
dependently of the Holy Spirit? Can the truth alone 
secure such a hearing and reception as will produce the 
new birth, or conversion ? Does John iii : 8, either in 
the original or in the common version, teach that? 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 131 

Mr. Lard thinks " the verse in the original contains 
an ' explanation ' of the long-litigated clause, ' born of 
the Spirit.' Others," he says, " hold that the verse con- 
tains an l illustration ' of the mysterious manner in 
which the Spirit quickens the sinner into life." Then 
both Mr. Lard and "others" have mistaken its meaning. 
The " verse " was designed to impress Nicodemus with 
the unreasonableness of his objection to the doctrine of 
the new birth, on account of its mysteriousness to him. 
He (Nicodemus) knew that the wind blew, by the fact 
that he heard the sound of it. And though he could 
not comprehend its motions — could not tell whence it 
came or whither it went — still, he did not dispute the 
fact that it blew. So the fact of the new birth was to be 
admitted on its own proper evidence, though he could 
not understand everything connected with it. This, it 
appears to me, is the force of the word "so." " So is 
every one that is born of the Spirit." Compare verses 
14, 15: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
ness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." That 
is, in like, or similar manner. As the blowing of the 
wind is mysterious, so is the new birth; and as we have 
evidence of the blowing of the wind, so have we of the 
new birth. And as, therefore, we admit the one, so must 
we admit the other. 

If this view of the text is correct, (and of this 1 leave 
the reader to judge,) then there is no attempt either at 
"explanation" or "illustration" of the "birth of the 
Spirit." There is simply an attempt at showing the 
unreasonableness of Nicodemus's objections. 

Mr. Lard translates the "original of the text" thus: 
"The Spirit breathes where it sees fit, and you hear its 
voice, but you know not whence it comes nor whither it 
goes : in this way is (begotten) every one that is begot- 



132 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

ten by the Spirit." He occupies full ten pages by criti- 
cisms and remarks. With some of them I agree, with 
some I do not. 1. I agree that the word pneuma, ren- 
dered in the common version " wind," occurs in the 
Greek New Testament three hundred and eighty-six 
times. 2. I admit that it is rendered " wind " only in 
this single passage. 3. I admit that in every other but 
one it is rendered "spirit/' or " ghost." 4. I admit, 
also, that the word translated " bloweth " occurs in the 
Greek New Testament seven times; but I deny that "in 
six of these times it is used to express the acts of things" 
It is uniformly used to express the action of wind. Here 
are the examples. Reader, consult them for yourself: 
Matt, vii: 25-27; Luke xii : 55; John vi : 18; Acts 
xxvii : 40, and Rev. vii: 1. 

Now while pneuma has so many examples in favor 
of rendering it " spirit," pnei has no example in favor 
of rendering it " breathe." There are two examples 
where the word "breathe" occurs, namely, John xx : 
22, and Acts ix : 1. In the former, the Greek word is 
cnephuscse, in the latter it is empneon. These facts, 
then, to say the least, render very doubtful Mr. Lard's 
translation. 

Mr. Lard, after laboring to make the Greek word pnei 
allow him to render it "breathe," says, "breathe" means 
"speak." Is "speak the proper translation of pnei? 
Has Mr. Lard overlooked the fact, that while speak, or 
some equivalent word, such as "said," etc., occurs hun- 
dreds of times in the common version, it is never the 
translation of this word, but always of some other ? If 
the Savior intended to say, "The Spirit speaks where it 
(he) sees fit," why did he not use the word laleof This 
is the word Paul uses in Acts xxviii : 25: "Well spake 
the Holy Ghost," etc. And this word is rendered by 



JETER S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 133 

speak, or its equivalent, in the common version at least 
three hundred times. 

I will pursue Mr. Lard's translation no further. But 
I must pay some attention to some remarks he. has 
interspersed while progressing with it. He represents 
Jesus as saying to Nicodemus : " I have told you what 
it (the Spirit) does which you may understand ; but of 
the Spirit itself, you must remain in other respects igno- 
rant until I am glorified, then it will be given ; when 
you will have no difficulty in Understanding what it is 
not proper I should at present make known to you." 

In reply to this quotation, I wish to say : 

1. It is strange that the Savior should use the pro- 
noun it to represent the Holy Spirit in his conversa- 
tion with Nicodemus, when everywhere else, and on all 
other occasions, he uses the pronoun lie! 

2. It is difficult for me to understand how the igno- 
rance of Nicodemus could have respect to the Spirit 
himself — from whence he came, etc. — when the writings 
of Moses and of the prophets are full of his name and 
operations. In the very dawn of Revelation we read : 
"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the 
waters." — Gen. i: 2. In another place we read: "By his 
Spirit he hath garnished the heavens." — Job. xxvi : 13. 
The prophet Isaiah asks: "Who hath directed the Spirit 
of the Lord?"— xl: 13. (Compare Isa. lix : 21.) It 
seems to me impossible that Nicodemus could have been 
ignorant of from whence the Spirit of God came. From 
whence can God's Spirit come but from God himself? 

3. It is evident from the context that the ignorance 
of Nicodemus had respect, not to the Spirit, but to the 
new birth by the Spirit. This is plain from the fourth 
verse: "How can a man be born when he is old?" etc. 
All that follows up to the ninth verse, (including, there- 



134 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

fore, the eighth,) is an answer to this question. And 1 
must confess, that it requires more ingenuity than I 
possess, to see how this question can be answered by 
telling the questioner he knows not whence the Spirit 



comes or £oes 



4. If the Spirit did not speak until after Jesus was 
glorified, is it not strange that Peter said that the Holy 
Ghost spake by David? (Acts iv : 16.) And that Paul 
should say, he spake by Isaiah? (Acts xxviii : 25.) Is 
it not also strange that the Savior should use the present 
tense : " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou 
hearest the sound thereof." Now, according to Mr. Lard, 
the Spirit had not yet breathed or spoken. Then how 
is it that Nicodemus heard his sound — his voice ? If 
all that the Savior said to Nicodemus was prophetical— 
if everything spoken of was in anticipation, no wonder 
he marveled. 

5. It is a strange thing that Jesus reproved Nicode- 
mus on account of his ignorance : " Art thou not a mas- 
ter of Israel, and knowest not these things?" — John 
iii : 10. But stop : has not Mr. Lard said that Jesus 
told Nicodemus that he was not only ignorant, but 
"must remain ignorant until he was glorified?" Yes; 
but Mr. Lard can sometimes commit mistakes. I had 
rather believe the record. 

§ io. 

Mr. Lard words his tenth argument thus : • 

" Our tenth argument is, that conviction of the sinner, 
which is peculiarly the work of the Spirit, and which may 
he considered as but another name for conversion, in the 
view we are now taking of it, can be effected in no way 
hnovm to the human mind except by the truth." 

If Mr. Lard means to say the Spirit convicts by means 
of the truth, I admit it. The words of his argument 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 135 

would indicate this as his meaning. But I apprehend 
before he is done amplifying the argument, this seeming 
meaning will be denied. Let us hear him further : 

"As a partial basis for this argument, we cite the fol- 
lowing Scriptures: '^Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: 
It is expedient for you that I go away : for if I go not 
away, the Comforter will not come to you ; but if I de- 
part, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, 
he will reprove (convince it should have been) the world 
of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment/ Again : 'If 
ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray 
the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that 
he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth; 
whom the world can not receive, because it seeth him 
not, neither knoweth him/ — John xvi : 7, 8; xiv: 17. 
From these Scriptures it is clear, first, that to convince 
the world is the peculiar work of the Spirit." Agreed. 
" From this work we may add, it [why did not Mr. Lard 
say he? Did he notice the quotations he had just 
made?] has never been absent a moment, from the day 
on which it (he) descended to commence it, on the day 
of Pentecost, to the present." Agreed again, with one 
exception. The Spirit did not descend at Pentecost to 
"commence" the work of conviction. Conviction was 
always the work of the Spirit. 

Mr. Lard continues: "Indeed, the work of conviction 
seems to be as peculiarly the work of the Spirit, as ex- 
piation was of the Son; nor can we any more coi^eive 
of the Spirit as now absent from its (his) work, than 
of the Son when he accomplished his." I say again, 
agreed. But now follows some strange things. Mr. 
Lard tells us, "There are some curious illustrations in 
the Acts of the Apostles, of the fact that conviction is 
the special work of the Spirit, and also of that singular 



136 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

sentence, ' The Spirit breathes where it sees fit.' We/' 
says he, "cite the following: 'The Spirit said to Philip, 
Go near and join thyself to this chariot.' Again, the 
Holy Ghost said : * Separate me Barnabas and Saul for 
the work whereunto I have called them.' And again : 
4 Now when they had gone through Phrygia, and the 
region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost 
to preach the word in Asia, after they were come to 
Mysia, they essayed to go into Bithynia; but the Spirit 
suffered them not.'" 

Are these " illustrations " of the fact that conviction 
is the peculiar work of the Spirit? They are "curious 
illustrations ! " They are rather illustrations of the fact 
that the Holy Spirit guided the first preachers of the 
Gospel, inspiring them to preach, choosing their fields of 
labor, and giving them success. But go on, Mr. Lard : 

" From these extracts, it seems evident — 1st. That in 
carrying on the work of conviction, the Spirit wrought 
only through the apostles and other ministers of the 
word whom it (he) inspired." Why, my dear sir, how 
does this seem evident from these extracts, when they 
say not one word about how the Spirit works in con- 
viction? But go on. " 2d. That if it (he) had not the 
entire control of their labors in this work, it, at least, 
had the chief control of them. 3d. That the Spirit 
breathed, or made known the truth, not unconditionally 
everywhere, but only where it (he) saw that the truth 
woul<J be received." 

Well, sir, I have no particular objection to your 
second statement, but I can not agree with your third. 
In the first place, I see you mean when you say the 
Spirit breathed, or made known the truth, simply that 
he inspired the apostles and other ministers, and they, 
not he, made it known. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 137 

2. If the Holy Spirit did not allow the apostles to gc 
" everywhere/' he interfered with their obedience to the 
last great command of the Savior: "Go into all the 
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." And 
he should not have allowed Paul to make such a blunder 
as he did at Athens, when he said, "God now command- 
eth all men everywhere to repent." Nor should he have 
allowed Mark to say: "And they went forth and preached 
everywhere, the Lord working with them." 

3. If his intention was to send the apostles and other 
ministers only where he " saw the truth would be re- 
ceived," he was not always successful : for he sometimes 
sent them where the truth was not received. How came 
he to move Stephen to preach to that mixed multitude, 
who, instead of receiving the truth, " gnashed upon him 
with their teeth," and murdered him with stones ! No ; 
the truth is, the Holy Spirit moved the primitive min- 
isters to preach as the Savior had commanded — "Repent- 
ance and remission of sins among all nations, beginning 
at Jerusalem." Hence at Antioch, in Pisidia, Paul went 
into the synagogue of the Jews and preached, in sub- 
stance, the very same sermon preached by Peter at Pen- 
tecost. But it did not have the same effect. His hearers, 
instead of asking, "What must we do?" judged them- 
selves " unworthy of everlasting life." Mr. Lard, did 
the Holy Spirit commit a blunder here? or was he at 
this time absent from his work? or did Paul "run be- 
fore he was sent?" So when Paul went to Rome, he 
"called the chief of the Jews together/' and gave them 
a brief account of the manner of his imprisonment, and 
the ground of it : " For the hope of Israel am I bound 
with this chain." This led many to desire to hear more 
from him. "And when they had appointed him a day, 
there came many to him in his lodging : to whom he 



138 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading 
them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, 
and out of the prophets, from morning until evening/' 
But did they receive the truth ? Nay, verily. Some 
believed, but they went away with the unrelenting mul- 
titude, with gross hearts, dull ears, and closed eyes ! 
How was this, Mr. Lard? Do you not, by this time, 
think that you committed a mistake, when you said, "The 
Spirit breathed, or made known the truth, not uncondi- 
tionally, everywhere, but only where it (he) saw fit to 
make it known — where, in other words, it (he) saw that 
the truth would be received ? " 

"But," perhaps you will say, "does not Luke tell us 
that Paul and Silas were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to 
preach the word in Asia? And that he* did not suffer 
them to go into Bithynia?" Yes, sir; Luke says that. 
But let me ask you if all other ministers were alike 
prohibited from preaching in these places? If so, who 
planted the seven Chnrches in Asia? And who became 
instrumental in the conversion of the "strangers scat- 
tered throughout Bithynia?" — 1 Peter i: 1. 

Let us hear Mr. Lard further: "But it is clear, 2nd. 
That the world — i. e., the unconverted part of it, or sin- 
ners — can not receive the Spirit; that is, that the Spirit 
can not enter into sinners; for that is what is meant by 
receiving the Spirit." 

Is that what is meant by receiving the Spirit? Does 
the English word "receive" ever mean "enter into?" 
Does the original word ever mean "enter into?" Never. 
It occurs in the Greek New Testament about two hun* 



* Mr. Lard must pardon me for putting the pronoun he for 
the Holy Spirit in his mouth; I can not use it only when I 
quote him. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 139 

dred and sixty times. But it never lias this sense in a 
single instance. And I ask, why should lambano have 
the meaning of "entered into" when used with respect to 
the Spirit, any more than when used with respect to Jesus 
Christ? Of him we read: "He came to his own, and his 
own received him not; but as many as received him, to 
them gave he power to become the sons of God." Does 
this mean " his own did not receive him," i. e., he did 
not "enter into" them. "But as many as received 
him," t. e., as many as he "entered into," to them gave 
he power, etc.? The incongruity of the idea will, I have 
no doubt, strike all minds. Well, in both passages the 
Greek, as well as the English, is the same. How any 
man of Mr. Lard's pretensions could venture to say, to 
receive means to enter into, I can not divine. 

The word receive implies voluntariness, choice, sub- 
mission. He who receives Jesus Christ, voluntarily 
submits to his guidance and authority : so he who re- 
ceives the Holy Spirit, voluntarily submits to his guid- 
ance and influence, as the Comforter of God's people. 
But this submission implies a previous work. A work 
which changes the will, subdues the rebellious disposi- 
tion of the heart, and conciliates its affections. Will 
Mr. Lard say the Spirit has no hand in this previous 
work? 

Whether the Spirit " enters into" the sinner or not, 
when he reproves him of sin, of righteousness, and of 
judgment, I pretend not to say. I am content with the 
fact that he reproves. The Savior says he does " re- 
prove (convince or convert, if you prefer) the world 
of sin," etc., but he says not a word about how he does 
it. When Mr. Lard says he does it "through his min- 
isters, and in no other way," he speaks the language of 



140 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

his creed, not of his text. For on the subject of how 
he reproves, the text says nothing. 

Besides, if the Holy Spirit convinced the world of sin, 
of righteousness, etc., in no other way than by speak- 
ing through the apostles and other ministers, there was 
nothing peculiar in his work: for in like manner did he 
convince the world of sin under the former dispensation. 
David says: "The Spirit of the Lord spake hy me, and 
his word was in my tongue." — 2 Sam. xxiii: 2. So Ne- 
hemiah says : " Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to in- 
struct them, and withheldest not thy manna from their 
mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst." — Neh. 
ix: 20. Again : " Thou testifiedst against them, that thou 
mightest bring them again to thy law. * * * Yet 
many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst 
against them by thy Spirit in thy prophets." — Neh. ix: 
29, 30. (Compare 2 Kings xvii : 13 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi: 15, 
16; Jer. vii : 25; xxv : 4.) Finally, the apostle Peter 
covers the whole ground by saying, " Holy men of God 
spake as moved by the Holy Ghost." — 2 Peter i: 21. 

We shall labor this point no further for the present. 
Let us follow Mr. Lard further in his argument. Mr. 
Lard asks: "But what is conviction?" and then answers 
his own question with emphasis, thus: "A firm persua- 
sion that something said or conceived of is true." Here, 
reader, note Mr. Lard's divergence from the point in the 
text, namely, the Savior specifies the things of which 
the Spirit shall convince (or convict) the world, to wit : 
" Of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." And he 
then goes on to say why he shall convict the world of 
these things. This being so, there is a want of rele- 
vancy in Mr. Lard's answer. Conviction with respect to 
sin, must consist in arousing or begetting in the soul a 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 141 

sense of guilt. Hence the fitness of the Savior's rea* 
son : a He shall reprove the world of sin, because they 
believe not on me." He shall make them feel the guilt 
of unbelief with respect to Jesus Christ. 

Mr. Lard, after giving us his definition of conviction, 
goes on to identify it with belief. It is, according to 
him, " in nothing distinguishable from belief." This 
statement is, in my estimation, contradicted by facts. 
Conviction has respect to ourselves. Belief, or faith, 
has respect to Jesus Christ. We are convicted of sin 
for unbelief, or want of faith; then how can this con- 
viction be identical with faith? The Jews at Pente- 
cost " were pricked in the heart/' This was conviction. 
Afterward " they gladly received the word." This was 
faith. Conviction and faith, then, are two distinct things, 
and they never should be confounded. 

After identifying conviction and faith, Mr. Lard says : 
"Now, in order to produce conviction, two things, and 
only two, are necessary, so far as the mere object and 
means of conviction are concerned, to wit : the thing of 
which we are to be convinced, and evidence in amount 
and kind sufficient to sustain it." And he maintains 
that the Holy Spirit has given us the proposition, " that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," and also 
the evidence in the divine record to sustain it. u Here 
now," says he, " the Spirit has furnished, not only the 
thing of which we are to be convinced, but the evidence 
in quantity and kind on which it rests." 

Here, reader, note particularly how far Mr. Lard has 
wandered from the point in his proof-text. However 
true it may be that we are indebted to the Holy Spirit 
for the proposition that " Jesus is the Christ," and for 
the evidences on which it rests, it is not of this prop- 
osition that Jesus says the Spirit shall convince the 



142 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

world. He is to convince the world, not that Jesus is the 
Christ, but " of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." 

But let us hear Mr. Lard stiU further : "Now, on our 
part, this thing and this evidence must be voluntarily 
attended to; and if so, conviction will as inevitably fol- 
low, unless deliberately resisted, as pain follows vice, or 
pleasure follows virtue. If conviction is not thus pro- 
duced, it is a dream." 

To this I answer, then the work of the Holy Spirit in 
producing conviction was finished upward of eighteen 
hundred years ago ; for he then gave the world the prop- 
osition to be believed, and the evidence in quantity and 
in kind on which it rests. And now, unless Mr. Lard 
will admit that the Spirit has something to do in secur- 
ing this " voluntary attention" to the proposition and 
evidence, he must deny his present agency in the work 
of conviction. But this he can not admit, for elsewhere 
he has denied it. But let the reader remember that in 
denying it, Mr. Lard destroys his own proposition, that 
the Spirit operates in conversion. 

I can not refrain from quoting the last paragraph of 
Mr. Lard's, in this argument. It is this : " Since, there- 
fore, conviction depends on the truth, proved to be such, 
and, as far as the human mind can see, on nothing else, 
and since conviction (in the view we are now taking of 
it) and conversion are the same, it follows that conver- 
sion depends on the truth, and on the truth alone. 

Header, do you not wonder how Mr. Lard could thus 
write, after wording his proposition as he has? Should 
he not blush either at his proposition or at his argu- 
ment? 0, that I could speak so loud as to be heard by 
all the world — the Holy Spirit does not operate in 

CONVERSION, IF CONVERSION DEPENDS ON THE TRUTH 
ALONE 1 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 143 

§ 11 

Mr. Lard states his eleventh argument thus : 

" Our eleventh argument is, that there is no cause known 
to have contributed to the conversion of the three thousand 
on the day of Pentecost, except the truth which they heard; 
and that it is hence unjust and unfair to infer the presence 
of any other" 

Now, reader, can you see how that argument proves 
that the Holy Spirit operates in conversion ? Can you 
see agreement between it and what Mr. Lard says under 
his seventh argument, viz.: "This system (the Camp- 
bellite system) conceives it (the Holy Spirit) to be ever 
present in conversion." Remember, he says three thou- 
sand were converted at Pentecost. In every such case, 
he tells us under his seventh argument, the Holy Spirit 
is ever present. Yet in these three thousand cases, he 
now tells us, no cause except the truth is known to have 
contributed to them, and that, therefore, it is " unjust 
and unfair to infer the presence of any other!" 

Is there not here a plain contradiction ? If the Holy 
Spirit is ahcays present in a case of conversion, was he 
not present here? Then how is it not known that any 
other cause except the truth was present in these cases 
of conversion ? Is not the Holy Spirit one cause? Is 
not the truth another? If the Holy Spirit is ever pres- 
ent, and the truth ever present, are not two causes ever 
present? I can not conceive how Mr. Lard could assert 
that the Holy Spirit operates in conversion — that he is 
ever present in it, and afterward say it is unjust and 
unfair to infer his presence ! ! 

It is not necessary that I should follow Mr. Lard 
through his amplification of this, his eleventh argument. 
In it, he does little more than describe the scenes which 
transpired at Pentecost. They are better described in 



144 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

the second chapter of the Acts ; and all can examine 
that for themselves. I shall, therefore, pass to Mr. Lard's 
concluding remarks. 

He asks, " To what, now, is this conviction attributa- 
ble? To what the audience heard simply? or to what 
they heard, and to an influence distinct from and above 
the truth? The latter is Mr. Jeter's position, the former 
ours." 

To this I reply, if the former is Mr. Lard's position, 
he has been unfortunate in wording it. Instead of read- 
ing, " The Holy Spirit operates in conversion through 
the truth," it should have read, " The truth only operates 
in conversion." 

Mr. Lard quotes : " When they heard this, they were 
pricked in the heart/' and then asks, " What, in rea- 
son's name pierced them, save the truth which they 
heard?" I answer by asking, what caused the truth to 
pierce them? Was it not the Holy Spirit, who converts 
by means of the truth? This is our position. Here is 
a man pierced by a sword. If I asked what pierced 
him? the answer, I presume, would be, "A sword." But 
if I should ask, Who pierced him? I presume, the an- 
swer would hardly be the same. So we would answer 
in regard to the conversions at Pentecost. The " what" 
refers to the word; the " who" to the Holy Spirit. 

Mr. Lard closes this argument by saying, "We believe 
the effect was due to one known cause, the truth which 
God puts into requisition to produce it; and all beyond 
we gladly leave to that pliant credulity which can be- 
lieve without evidence, and to that enviable penetration 
which can detect the presence of a cause, where no cause 
exists." 

I reply by saying, we believe " the effect was due" to 
two causes : the acknowledged agency of the Holy Spirit, 
~nd the truth, which he employs to produce it. And all 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 145 

that stop this side of this, we leave to that cold " Ration- 
alism" which excludes the Holy Spirit from conversion, 
his chief and peculiar work, and to that singular infat- 
uation which has caused Mr. Lard to acknowledge in his 
proposition that " the Holy Spirit operates in conver- 
sion," and then in his argument to deny it. 

§12. 

Mr. Lard states his twelfth argument thus : 

" The conversion of the eunuch justifies the belief in no 
other influence as the cause of his conversion, except the 
truth which he heard." 

Then, of course, the Holy Spirit was not the cause of 
the eunuch's conversion ! 

But stop. Mr. Lard after a while says: "To what 
conclusion does it [the history of the eunuch's con- 
version] lead? Clearly to the following: 1. That the 
Spirit operated on the eunuch. 2. That it (he) operated 
through the truth. 3. That it (he) operated in no other 
way; since no other way is either named or hinted at." 

Well, does not that seem correct? Yes, reader, but 
I object to it because it conceals one fact in Mr. Lard's 
theory, £ e., the Spirit did not operate on the eunuch 
at all! He only furnished Philip with the message he 
delivered to him. It was what Philip said that converted 
him. The Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the word 
after it left Philip's lips. He had nothing to do with 
the eunuch's heart, or will, in receiving the message of 
Philip. He was the cause of the eunuch's conversion, 
in no sense implying anything more than that he in- 
spired Philip to speak to him ! He converted the eunuch 
as Jesus baptized his disciples — by proxy. — John iv : 1, 
2. Jesus made and baptized disciples, i. e., his disciples 
did it for him and by his authority; so, according to Mr. 
Lard, the Holy Spirit converted the eunuch; i. e., he did 
7 



146 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

not convert him at all, but Philip did it under his direc- 
tion ! 

That I do not here misrepresent Mr. Lard, the follow- 
ing quotation will show: " The Spirit, then, was present 
but in Philip, and not in the eunuch ; for the world can 
not receive it (him :) it (he) had spoken but to Philip, 
and not to the eunuch. Now, hoover, it (he) was speak- 
ing to the eunuch, but speaking only through Philip ; 
and so it (he) continued till conviction was effected. All, 
then, that was said to the eunuch, the Spirit said, but 
said it through Philip ; all that the eunuch learned, he 
learned from the Spirit, but he learned it through Philip; 
and all that the eunuch felt, the Spirit caused him to 
feel, but by what it (he) said. And this is a case of con- 
version/' 

I have, I think, already shown in § 3, chapter 1, that 
the eunuch was not at this time converted. My opinion 
is, he was a pious, God-fearing man before. All the 
facts in the history warrant this opinion. Read atten- 
tively what is said of him in Acts viii. 1. He came 
to Jerusalem to worship. 2. As he was returning, he 
was attentively reading Isaiah the prophet. 3. He was 
anxious to be religiously instructed. 4. He heard Philip 
calmly. 5. He showed no signs of a disturbed convicted 
spirit. 6. He asked no such question as convicted sin- 
ners are wont to ask, viz. : " What must I do to be 
saved?" He simply demanded baptism in the name of 
that Jesus whom Philip had just preached to him. 

All this shows to me that the eunuch was a religious 
proselyte — a Jew inwardly — (Rom. ii : 29,) an expectant 
of the Messiah. I classify him with Nathaniel, (John 
i: 47-49,) and Apollos, (Acts xviii : 24-28.) All these 
were converted — changed in heart — before they knew 
that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. And all of 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 147 

them embraced him as soon as he was made known to 
them. The eunuch believed in the Messiah, waited for 
his manifestation, and his heart being right, all that he 
needed was suitable and more perfect instruction. This 
he received from Philip. It turns out, therefore, that 
Mr. Lard's twelfth argument is built upon a mistaken 
case of conversion, and is worth nothing, save only to 
show how Mr. Lard can argue against his own " propo- 
sition. " 

Mr. Lard winds up this argument by asking : " But 
where is the evidence that the Spirit exerted on the 
eunuch an ' influence distinct from and above the truth?' 
In what fact, hint, or circumstance, in the case itself, 
shall we look for it? That evidence does not exist. The 
persuasion that it does, is a distempered dream." 

In reply, I would ask, may we not know a tree by its 
fruits? May we not know a fountain by its stream? 

Did not the eunuch exhibit some of the fruits of the 
Spirit? But could he do this without the Spirit him- 
self? "In what fact, hint, or circumstance, in the case 
itself, can we look for the fruits" of the Spirit where he 
exerts no influence? " The persuasion that" any of the 
fruits of the Spirit can exist without the Spirit himself, 
"is a distempered dream/' 

§13. 

Mr. Lard states his thirteenth argument thus; 

"Our thirteenth argument is, that the apostle Paul rep- 
resents himself as having begotten, or converted, the Cor- 
inthians by the Gospel; and that, since the Gospel in its 
ordinary acceptation does not include an influence distinct 
from and above itself, therefore, the Gospel is the sole in- 
fluence of conversion. " 

He adds : " The ground on which this argument rests 



148 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

is the following : i Though you have ten thousand in- 
structors in Christ, yet have you not many fathers; for 
in Christ Jesus I have begotten you, through the Gos- 
pel.' "_1 Cor. iv: 15. 

Now, I ask, does this language of the apostle's sus- 
tain the argument? Does it follow that because Paul 
said, "I have begotten you through the Gospel" " the 
Gospel is the sole influence of conversion?" "Abraham 
begat Isaac/' (Matt, i: 2,) but does that exclude the 
Spirit of God from any agency in his birth? Without 
a Divine interposition, Isaac never would have been 
born. God quickened the womb of Sarah, and gave it 
power of conception. So God quickens the sinner. 
" And you hath he quickened who were dead in tres- 
passes and sins." — Eph. ii: 1. The natural birth of 
Isaac, and the spiritual birth of the converted man, are 
analogous. — Gal. iv: 28, 29. Now, just as Abraham 
begat Isaac by virtue of the Divine interposition in re- 
moving natural impediments, so Paul begat the Corin- 
thians, by virtue of the Divine interposition in removing 
moral impediments. This Mr. Lard may not be willing 
to acknowledge, but were Paul here, how forward would 
he be to acknowledge it ! He would, I have no doubt, 
with a holy indignance say to Mr. Lard : u Have you 
not read where I have said, ' I planted, but God gave 
the increase V And, again, 'So neither is he that plant- 
eth anything, * * * but God that giveth the in- 
crease.' He is everything. Do you not know that my 
language, which you represent as teaching a sentiment 
incongruous with these statements, was used by me, not 
to teach that ' the Gospel is the sole influence of con- 
version,' but to strengthen my authority and influence 
among the Corinthians, who had become somewhat dis- 
affected toward me, and refractory and disorderly? As 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 149 

God had made me the honored instrument in planting 
the seeds of Divine truth among them, and in their 
conversion from heathenism to Christianity, I could 
claim, in that sense, to be their father ; while others, to 
whom they were inclined to listen and to give the pref- 
erence, were simply their instructors. Forbear, Mr. Lard, 
to quote what I have here said against the agency of 
the Holy Spirit in conversion. I owe my success to 
him. I was a mere ' earthen vessel/ 'The excellency 
of the power was of God/ My ' sufficiency was of him/ " 
—2 Cor. iii: 5. 

As I want the reader and the world to know precisely 
what is the Campbellite view of the agency of the Holy 
Spirit in conversion, and as Mr. Lard sets it forth very 
clearly under this argument, I will quote all he says 
here on this point : 

" In examining different cases of conversion, since 
conversion is in all cases the same, the trait with which 
we should expect to be most struck, would be their sub- 
stantial agreement amid different circumstances. Ac- 
cordingly, it is curious to note that in every case of 
conversion, no matter what the surrounding circum- 
stances may have been, the first thing done was the pres- 
entation of the truth: that this was presented by the 
Spirit through some inspired teacher, and confirmed; 
that this truth was then represented as being heard, be- 
lieved, received, or rejected ; and that then conversion 
ensued or not, just as the truth was received or rejected. 
But in no case have we the slightest evidence — not even 
a hint — that the Spirit was ever at work in any other 
way, or by any other means. Is it not strange that the 
truth, if truth it is, should never be flashed out in a single 
case ? The circumstance is more than suspicious. 

" Now, what the word spoken was to the people then 



150 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

converted, the word written is to us of the present age 
As it was then the sole influence of conversion, circum- 
stances providential and incidental excepted, so it is now. 
As the Spirit was then the author of what was said, and 
of the evidence thereof, and hence of the effect pro- 
duced, so is it (he) now the author of what is written, 
and of the evidence thereof, and hence of the effect 
which it produces. As the Spirit was then present when 
it (he) spoke, so is it (he) now present when it (he) 
has written ; and as what it (he) then said was quick 
and powerful — in a word, spirit and life — so now what 
it (he) has written, has without abatement the same 
subtile energy. And as then he who resisted the truth 
resisted the Spirit, so it is now; but where is evidence — 
in reason we ask where — that any soul, either then or 
now, has ever resisted the Spirit by resisting an ' influ- 
ence distinct from and above the truth ?' " 

Now, reader, examine this question carefully, and see 
if you can fully understand it. I think it sufficiently 
explicit. It plainly teaches that the Spirit is in no 
way the author of conversion, except that he is the 
author of the "truth" which converts. He has simply 
furnished the "truth" as "spoken," or "written/' and 
confirmed it by suitable evidence, and now he does noth- 
ing more. Then all the agency he has in conversion, 
consists in that of being the author of the " truth " and 
its evidences employed in conversion. Then he has 
done nothing for the conversion of sinners for the last 
eighteen hundred years ! And he never will do any- 
thing more ! And yet Mr. Lard's " proposition " is, 
"In conversion the Holy Spirit operates! 1 ' 

§ 14 - 
Mr. Lard states his fourteenth and last argument thus : 
u Our fourteenth and last argument ?'s, that the only 



I 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 151 

known or determinate cause of Lydia 1 s conversion, was the 
truth which she heard; and that this, hence, is the real 
cause of conversion ." 

The reader can turn to Acts xvi: 14, 15, and see at a 
glance all that is said about Lydia's conversion. "And 
a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the 
city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us; whose 
heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things 
which were spoken by Paul," etc. The facts, then, are 
these : 

1. Paul and Silas spoke unto the women that resorted 
to the place where prayer was wont to be made. — V. 13. 

2. A certain woman named Lydia heard and attended 
to the things that were spoken. 

3. This fact is ascribed to another fact, namely, the 
Lord opened her heart. 

Now, those other women heard, but they did not at- 
tend to what they heard. Now, why did they not? 

In Lydia' s case Mr. Lard says: "It is clear, 1st. That 
the Spirit was present, speaking to Lydia — speaking 
through the apostles ; 2d. That she heard what was said; 
3d. That there is an immense motive power in the truth; 
4th. But not one particle of evidence that the Spirit was 
operating on Lydia in some other way than through the 
truth, or exerting more power than is in the truth. To 
what conclusion, then, are we forced? To the conclu- 
sion simply, that the Lord influenced her to obey by 
the light and motives of the Gospel." 

In reply I ask, is it not equally clear, 1st. That the 
Spirit also spake through the apostles to the other 
women? 2d. That they also heard what was said? 3d. 
That the same immense motive power was in the truth 
which they heard? 4th. That their hearts were not 
opened to attend to what they heard? Then to what 



152 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

conclusion are we forced ? Why, if Mr. Lard be right 
the Lord did no more for Lydia than he did for those 
other women, and that there is, therefore, no meaning 
in the declaration that " the Lord opened her heart/' 
She opened it herself. He who can receive this, let him 
receive it. 

I have now finished my examination of Mr. Lard's 
fourteen arguments in support of his proposition. And 
I think I have shown to a demonstration, that every 
one of the fourteen is antagonistic to his proposition. 
While his proposition teaches that the Holy Spirit oper- 
ates in conversion, his arguments all go to show that he 
does not. 

The doctrine taught by his argument is : 

1. The Holy Spirit is the author of the proposition 
the sinner is required to believe, namely, that Jesus is 
the Christ, the Son of the living God. 

2. He is the author of the arguments and proofs go- 
ing to establish this proposition. 

3. In other words, he has furnished the truth con- 
tained in the Divine records. 

4. That in this truth, because it is furnished by him, 
there exists a power which makes it effectual in the work 
of conversion. 

5. Therefore all the power that is exerted in every 
case of conversion is now resident in the truth. 

And now, I put it to every candid mind, if, accord- 
ing to this, it does not follow as a necessary consequence, 
that there is now no influence exerted in conversion by 
the Spirit? When the last line of Revelation was writ- 
ten, and the last attestation of its truth was given, the 
work of the Holy Spirit was done. His work was then 
a finished work ; and now the truth alone — the truth by 
itself — the truth, and nothing else, "operates." 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 153 

I have, in following Mr. Lard through his fourteen 
arguments, not only shown that they are antagonistic to 
his " proposition/' but also, that not one of the passages 
of Scripture which he has brought forward, justifies or 
supports the argument he builds upon it. Not one of 
them asserts that conversion depends on the truth alone. 
Not one of them denies the present agency or influence of 
the Holy Spirit in conversion. 

Mr. Lard, after giving us his fourteen arguments in 
support (!) of his proposition, gives us a chapter in 
which he considers Mr. Jeter's objections to his, or the 
Campbellite doctrine on this subject, and though, as I 
have already said, it is no part of my design to defend 
Mr. Jeter, I must give some attention to this chapter 
before I proceed to argue our side of this question. I 
shall simply quote Mr. Jeter's objections as quoted by 
Mr. Lard. I shall not attempt to defend them any 
further than it becomes necessary in noticing what Mr. 
Lard says in his attempt to meet them. If the reader 
wishes to become fully acquainted with Mr. Jeter's ob- 
jections, and to appreciate their force, he must read them 
as stated by Mr. Jeter himself; and this I hope he 
will do. 



7* 



154 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONVERSION. 
§ 1- 

MR. Lard, in proceeding to consider Mr. Jeter's ob« 
jections to his doctrine, undertakes to tell us the 
points of difference between himself and Mr. Jeter. He 
says : " We both agree that in conversion the Spirit 
operates." I would rejoice if Mr. Lard really meant 
what he has said here. He does not believe that the 
Spirit operates. He believes that the truth operates be- 
cause it is of the Spirit. He believes that the poicer by 
which it operates is now in it. And that the Holy Spirit 
can not increase this power without infringing the free- 
dom of the human will. Let the reader go back and 
re-examine his remarks, as quoted in § 1, chapter 3 ; 
and also his second argument under the head of § 2. 
His words arc; "And we shall further add, that neither 
in quantity nor in force, do we conceive that this influ- 
ence [of the truth] can be increased and the human will 
be left free." "An influence more intense than that of 
Divine truth, and above it, would of necessity infringe 
the freedom of the human will, and hence can not be 
admitted to be present in conversion. " Now, I ask, can 
the man who wrote the above sentence believe that the 
Holy Spirit now operates in conversion ? I can not 
think that he does. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 155 

Mr. Lard says: " When lie (Mr. Jeter) objects to our 
doctrine, it is evident that he objects not to what we do 
teach, but in reality to what we do not teach." We 
object, Mr. Lard, to what you do teach. We do not 
object to your " proposition/' excepting the limitation 
found in the word "only." But you teach that all the 
converting power now resides in the truth. To this we 
object. We hold that all the converting power resides 
now, as it ever has done, in the Holy Spirit. Meaning 
by power, efficiency. You hold that no influence distinct 
from the truth, is exerted in conversion — that the only 
influence exerted in conversion, the truth alone exerts. 
To this we object. We maintain that all the power that 
belongs to the truth is of an instrumental character. 
When the apostle says, "The Gospel is the power of God 
unto salvation," he uses the word "power" in a sense 
analogous to that of the philosopher, when he says, the 
lever is the power of the mechanic ; or to that of the 
warrior, when he says, the sword is the power of the 
soldier. 

You say we object to what you do not teach? I 
should like to know how that is. You say we object to 
your " limitation " Well, do you not teach the limita- 
tion ? Then, how is it that we object to what you do 
not teach? 

Mr. Lard tells us what he expects us to do in this 
controversy. We must make our objection to this, and 
we must prove that ! I do not know what Mr. Jeter 
will submit to, but I would let Mr. Lard know that I 
shall shape my own objections, and define my own posi- 
tions, without submitting to his dictation on the subject. 
I will not allow him to choose my camping-ground and 
construct my batteries. 

After these preliminaries Mr. Lard states Mr. Jeter's 



156 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

first objection thus : " Mr. Campbell's theory of conver- 
sion overlooks, or, at least, under-estimates the inveteracy 
of human depravity/' 

Mr. Lard occupies eight pages in meeting this objec- 
tion. He gives us a pretty clear view of the Cainpbell- 
ite notion of human depravity. He sometimes seems 
to admit it, and sometimes to deny it. But even when 
he seems to admit it, he is careful to admit it in no form 
or sense, "which renders the sinner incapable of conver- 
sion by the truth. " I will let him speak for himself: 

" The very thing which we utterly deny is, that any 
degree or form of depravity exists in the human heart, 
which renders the sinner incapable of conversion by the 
truth/' 

Again he says: "There are two forms of depravity, 
in the existence of which we do not believe : One, a form 
which makes it necessary to regenerate infants in order 
to their salvation ; the other, a form which renders an 
influence distinct from and above the truth necessary to 
conversion. And should it be said that depravity exists 
in these two forms only, then ice are prepared to deny the 
whole tiling." 

Well, I will, I think, drive Mr. Lard, before I have 
done, to this extreme, if he is not there already. But, 
for the present, I will quote him further: 

"We agree to the mournful truth, that man is de- 
praved, i. c, that his reason has been greatly clouded 
by the fall, that his tastes and feelings have been per- 
verted, and that he no longer reflects the image — the 
moral image — of his great original, as he once reflected 
it; that he now reflects it only as a broken mirror re- 
flects the image of the face before it. The three respects 
in which man has chiefly suffered by the fall, we con- 
ceive to be his subjection to mortality, his loss of the 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 157 

moral image of a kind Creator, and his greater exposed- 
ness to temptation and sin." 

"We agree, further, that all (infants included) are so 
frail or weak, that, after a certain period of life, they 
not only sin, but they are even inclined to sin. But 
this inclination we believe to be owing, at first at least, 
rather to the force of temptation, and the feebleness of 
the resistance offered by an immature resisting will, and 
untaught judgment, than to anything in the form of an 
innate, inherited depravity, so inveterate that resistance 
becomes nearly, if not quite impossible. True, we all 
inherit that frail nature which renders us so extremely 
susceptible to temptation. Nay, we will even grant that 
we inherit it in an aggravated form, which is the only 
form in which we do inherit it. But we inherit no form 
of depravity so inveterate as to affect the perfect free- 
dom of the human will, close the heart against the truth, 
or render man insusceptible of being moved by motives; 
in a word, no form which renders him incapable of being 
converted by the simple unaided light and force of divine 
truth" 

The two quotations above give you the full benefit 
of Mr. Lard's view of depravity. I shall test their cor- 
rectness by and by. For the present, I will simply note 
some points in them. 1. Man is depraved. 2. That 
is, (a) His reason has been greatly clouded, (b) His 
tastes and feelings have been perverted. (c) He no 
longer reflects the moral image of his Creator as he once 
reflected it. (d) All this has been effected by the fall. 
(e) We all inherit that frail nature which renders us so 
extremely susceptible of temptation. (/) It is granted 
that we inherit it in an aggravated form. (</) But ad- 
mitting all this, still it can be remedied by the simple, 
unaided light and force of Divine truth. (Ji) I will then 



158 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

add, therefore, of course, there is no need of the influence 
of the Holy Spirit in conversion! 

But now we will see, that though Mr. Lard has ad- 
mitted all the above, he goes on to contradict it. The 
following paragraph is a complete contradiction. 

" But this frailty or weakness is not sin: it is only a 
condition without which there had been no sin. Nor is 
it a consequence of Adams sin. Adam possessed it before 
he sinned, else he had not sinned: hence it is not a con- 
sequence of his sin. It is, however, a condition of sin, 
since without it Adam could not have sinned; but it is 
only a condition. Nor, perhaps, will facts warrant the 
conclusion that this frailty is, even in our case, greatly 
increased. For greater weakness in sinning was never 
displayed than by Adam. He yielded to the first tempt- 
ation ever presented to him, without, so far as we know, 
offering even the slightest resistance. None of his de- 
scendants ever did more." 

Now, reader, can you reconcile this latter quotation 
with the former? 

1. The former says man is depraved. The latter says 
he is frail or weak. Is frailty or weakness depravity? 
It is not. Frailty or weakness may express a natural 
state, an original condition. Not so depravity. Deprav- 
ity is something superinduced. A corruption of the orig- 
inal condition. 

2. The former says, man's reason has become be- 
clouded, his taste and feelings greatly perverted, etc., 
by the fall. But the latter says, all this is not a conse- 
quence of Adam's sin ! Now, what is the fall but Adam's 
sin? And is not that which has been done by the fall, 
a consequence of Adam's sin ? 

3. The former says, we inherit this frailty, or weak* 
ness, or depravity, (for I take it that Mr. Lard uses thest 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 159 

terms as equivalents;) but the latter says, we do not in. 
herit it as a consequence of Adam's sin. Adam pos- 
sessed it before he sinned. Hence it is man's original 
condition. Then, from whom do we inherit it? The 
word, "inherit," means to take by descent from an 
ancestor — to receive by nature from a progenitor. Now, 
that frail nature which renders us so extremely suscep- 
tible of temptation, belongs to us by inheritance. But 
it is not a consequence of Adam's sin. Adam pos- 
sessed it before he sinned. So says Mr. Lard. Then I 
ask again, from whom do we inherit it? But one an- 
swer can be given. If we do not inherit it from Adam 
as a fallen progenitor, we inherit it from him as an 
original progenitor. And of course he inherited it 
from God! THIS MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OF 
SIN!! 

But, be it remembered, that this comes directly in con- 
tact with the declaration of the apostle James : " Let 
no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God : 
for God can not be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he 
any man : but every man is tempted when he is drawn 
away by his own lusts and enticed." — James i : 13, 14. 
In the 17th verse the apostle tells us what does come 
from God. Namely, " Every good gift, and every perfect 
gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of 
lights." God is the author of everything that is good, 
but of nothing that is evil. 

Mr. Lard, it seems to me, is doing his utmost to wrest 
the work of conversion out of God's hands, on the one 
hand, and to make him chargeable with human crime on 
the other. He at least does this : he will not let the 
Holy Spirit dispose the heart of the sinner to receive 
the truth. He will not let him be the author of that 
virtuous state of the heart, out of which, as out of a 



160 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

fountain, all holy affections, desires, and actions, flow; 
but he will have him to be the author of that frail, and 
weak or depraved condition of human nature "without 
which there had been no sin ! " This is awful ! 

4. The former quotation says: "We inherit it" (that 
frail and weak nature, which renders us so extremely 
susceptible of temptation) " in an aggravated form," 
— yea, more — that '• this is the only form in which we 
do inherit it." But the latter quotation says, not only 
that Adam possessed it before he sinned, but also that 
in our case it is not greatly increased. " For greater 
weakness in sinning was never displayed than by Adam !" 

It is an old adage : " Whom the gods intend to de- 
stroy they first make mad." Was not Mr. Lard's mind 
out of order when he wrote so contradictorily? He 
seems to affirm and deny alternately. 

We inherited frailty and weakness in an aggravated 
form, and yet we are but little if any weaker or more 
frail than Adam was in his primeval state! Our aggra- 
vated frailty and weakness was produced by the fall, and 
yet it is not a consequence of Adam's sin ! The only 
form of frailty and weakness we inherit is an aggra- 
vated one, and yet facts will not warrant the conclu- 
sion that our frailty and weakness is much greater than 
Adam's; for greater weakness in sinning was never dis- 
played than by him ! We inherit frailty and weakness 
in an aggravated form, if we inherit them at all, and 
yet facts will not warrant the conclusion that we do thus 
inherit them ! Then, of course, we do not inherit them 
at all ! Yet we are depraved ! ! 

Now, I want the reader to note particularly one thing, 
namely: This frailty which we now inherit, Mr. Lard 
says, Adam possessed before he fell. Then, of course, 
he got it from God. Then, of course, it is not neces- 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 1G1 

sary for God to regenerate man, if in his first gener« 
ation he gave him a weak and frail nature; for he might 
give him such a nature in his second generation. In- 
deed, if man is now as good as he was when God made 
him, he is as good as God wants him to be ; for then 
he pronounced him "very good." If man was "very 
good" then, and is as good now as he was then, he is 
very good still. And he is, therefore, good enough ! 
I think Mr. Lard should either recede from his pres- 
ent position, or advance one step further — either come 
back to orthodox ground, and acknowledge man's utter 
— yes, utter — depravity, or go on reforming until he not 
only denies, as he has done, the need of the influence of 
the Holy Spirit in conversion, but also that man needs 
conversion at all ! For, plainly, if man is now no worse 
than Adam was before he sinned, he needs no conver- 
sion ! 

§ 2 - 

I. Mr. Lard proceeds to give us Mr. Jeter's " plea" 
for that " inveterate form of depravity," for which he 
contends thus: 

" The Spirit of inspiration has drawn the picture of 
man's moral corruption, in gloomy colors. He is utterly 
depraved, fleshly, sensual, and impure. " That which 
is born of the flesh is flesh." — John iii : 6. He is with- 
out spiritual life, without holiness, without moral worth, 
— "dead in trespasses and sins." — Eph. ii: 1. He is 
alienated from God and opposed to his law, and conse- 
quently, to truth and righteousness. "Because the car- 
nal mind is enmity against God : for it is not subject to 
his law, neither indeed can be." — Rom. viii : 7. This 
depravity pervades and controls the whole man — blind- 
ing the mind, perverting the affections, stupefying the 



162 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

conscience, making rebellious and obstinate the will, 
and prostituting the members of the body as the instru- 
ments of sin. And this moral corruption of human na- 
ture is universal. " For all have sinned and come short 
of the glory of God." — Rom. iii : 23. 

" There is here," says Mr. Lard, "an obvious effort 
to overstrain the truth, which in itself is bad enough 
without any hightening." 

1. How is such an effort obvious? The quotation 
consists of a few passages from Scripture, and a few re- 
marks by way of comment. Are not the remarks justi- 
fied and sustained by the passages ? 

2. But how can Mr. Lard say, the " truth" of man's 
depravity " is bad enough within itself without any 
hightening," if he is now in a condition but little, if 
any, worse than that of Adam before he sinned? God 
seemed to think Adam's condition good enough ; and it 
certainly was, if he was " very good." The language of 
Mr. Lard, unless he intends again to contradict himself, 
is a reflection upon the Divine honor. 

" But it is proper," says Mr. Lard, " to descend to 
particulars. 1st. "He [man] is utterly depraved, fleshly, 
sensual, and impure." " That which is born of the flesh 
is flesh." — John iii: 6. Thus affirms Mr. Jeter. 

"Now, we freely grant," says Mr. Lard, "that that 
which is born of the flesh is flesh ; but, that flesh and 
utter depravity mean the same thing, or represent the 
same idea, is something we do not believe." 

Now, this question turns upon the idea which the 
Scriptures attach to the term "flesh/' Let us inquire 
what did Jesus mean when he said to Nicodemus, "That 
which is born of the flesh is flesh." 

1. His meaning is suggested by the contrast — " That 
which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Does he mean by 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 163 

this contrast, merely that the human body — the animal 
part — is that which is born of the flesh ? and that the hu- 
man soul — the immaterial part — is born of the Spirit? 
In other words, does he mean that as our natural birth 
gives existence to our flesh, so does our spiritual birth give 
existence to our spirits? I think no one will thus affirm. 
No : his meaning obviously is, that a man must be born 
again, — not with respect to his body, but with respect to 
his spirit. That is, as by his natural birth he is sinful, 
he must be born again — born of the Spirit — to be made 
holy. The intimation is, his moral corruption belongs 
to him by reason of his being the offspring of a fallen 
parent. This being so, for him to be born again, ac- 
cording to the understanding of Nicodeinus, would do 
him no good. A second natural birth — a birth of the 
flesh, would not change his moral nature. It would 
leave him in precisely the same condition as his first 
birth. 

2. Now, as the Savior can not mean by the term 
" flesh/' the mere corporeal nature of man, he must 
mean his corrupt moral nature. Hence, "flesh" and "ut- 
ter depravity" mean the same thing. Let the reader 
consult the following passages of Scripture, (Rom. vii : 
18 :) " For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) there 
dwelleth no good thing/' Will not the word " utter" 
apply here? If in Paul's flesh there dwelt no good 
thing, was it not utterly destitute of good? So the flesh 
of man, when contrasted with that which the Son of God 
took upon him, is called "sinful flesh." "God sent his 
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." — Rom. viii: 3. Now, 
so far as the mere flesh — the material part of man — is 
concerned, does it differ from the mere flesh of Jesus 
Christ? Evidently not. The difference between him 
and man, is found in the fact that while man's natural 



164 EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

birth entails upon him a sinful nature, Jesus, though 
born as man is, born of a woman, was exempt from this 
entailment. He took upon him our nature, jet without 
sin. — Heb. iv: 15. We take it, with sin. 

3. Let the reader consult, also, Gal. iv : 29. " But as 
then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that 
was bom after the Spirit, even so it is now." Here Ish- 
mael and Isaac, the two sons of Abraham, are alluded 
to. But they are alluded to as typical persons. The 
former represents an unconverted man — a " Jew out- 
wardly ;" while the latter represents a converted man — 
a "Jew inwardly/ 7 — Bom. ii : 28, 29. In other words, 
Ishmael is typical of man in his carnal, fleshly state, 
while Isaac is typical of man in his spiritual, or regen- 
erated state. The contrast is precisely similar to the 
one drawn by the Savior in the words we are consider- 
ing. Is there any good — any moral worth in the typi- 
cal Ishmael? Is he not utterly destitute of it? If Mr. 
Lard thinks there is, let him point it out. 

4. I would also call the reader's attention to Gal. v: 
16-24. " This I say then, walk in the Spirit, and ye 
shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth 
against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and 
these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye can 
not do the things that ye would. * * * Now, the 
works of the flesh are manifest, which are these : adul- 
tery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, 
witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, se- 
ditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revel- 
ings, and such like/' Now, certainly, these are not the 
u fruit" or " works" of human nature as it came from 
the hands of the Creator, but of fallen, sinful, fleshly hu- 
man nature ; therefore, of depraved, u utterly depraved,' 1 
human nature. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 165 

"But the fruit of the Spirit (as contrasted with 
the c works of the flesh,) is love, joy, peace, long-suffer- 
ing, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.' 1 
These are the fruits of regenerated human nature — - 
" Make the tree good, and the fruit will be good." 
" Now that which is born of the flesh is flesh; M i. e., it 
is that carnal, depraved, and sinful state of human na- 
ture which, like a corrupt tree, produces these abomi- 
nable fruits ; while " that which is born of the Spirit is 
spirit ;" i. c, that regenerated and holy state of human 
nature that, as a good tree, yields those good and holy 
fruits. 

5. Notwithstanding Mr. Lard disputes Mr. Jeter's in- 
terpretation of the term "flesh," he does not tell us what 
he understands it to mean. From all he has said, one 
would infer that he understands the term in its literal 
sense. That is, as simply designating the material part 
of man. If Mr. Lard does not understand it in this 
sense, it becomes him to tell the world in what sense he 
does understand it. 

II. The second particular Mr. Lard gives us from Mr. 
Jeter, is : 

11 He [man] is without spiritual life, without holiness, 
without moral worth — dead in trespasses and sins. — 
Eph. ii: 1." 

Mr. Lard replies : " Now, we admit that man, unre- 
generate, is without spiritual life, without holiness, but 
not quite that he is without moral worth; or rather, we 
admit that man is unregenerate. But this is not the 
question at issue, neither does it imply it. Is a man 
who is admitted to be without spiritual life to be there- 
fore deemed utterly depraved? This is the question." 

Well, let this be the question. Then it is to be de- 
cided by the meaning of the two terms "death" and 



166 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

" life." Man is admitted to be " dead in sins," to be 
without " spiritual life/' Then is he not utterly de- 
praved ? Let us see. 

1. As death is the opposite of life, to ascertain what 
death is, we must first ascertain what life is. What does 
the Bible call life — spiritual life? The following pas- 
sages from that book answer this question : " We know 
that we have passed from death unto life, because we 
love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother, 
abideth in death." — 1 John iii : 14. Now, here you see 
that he who hates is in a state of death, while he who 
loves is in a state of life. And that he was once in the 
former state, but has passed out of it into the latter. 
It follows, then, that love is life, and hatred, its oppo- 
site, is death. This view is confirmed by Rom. viii : 6, 
7 : " For to be carnally minded is death ; but to be 
spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the car- 
nal mind is enmity against God." 

Now, note, in 1 John iii: 14, it is called hate; here 
it is called enmity. The carnal mind is death. The 
carnal mind is enmity. Then death is enmity. Now, as 
the spiritual mind is the opposite of the carnal mind, it 
follows that as the carnal mind is enmity, the spiritual 
mind must be love, for love is the opposite of enmity, 
and vice versa. 

Now, if the views here given of the meanings of the 
terms death and life are correct, of which I think there 
can be no doubt, they settle the question of utter de- 
pravity. There can be no life in death. There can be 
no love in enmity. A state of love, of life, was man's 
primeval state, a state of enmity, of death, is man's 
fallen, depraved state. Now, as man in the fall retained 
no love, no life, he is utterly depraved. 

Mr. Lard says : " If to be destitute of spiritual life, 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 167 

were a consequence of utter depravity, or necessarily 
implied it, then of course the existence of that would 
prove the reality of this." 

I answer by saying, the destitution of spiritual life is 
not the consequence but the came of depravity, or rather, 
it is depravity itself, just as destitution of natural life 
is the cause of death, or rather death itself. 

Mr. Lard says : " The absence of one thing can never 
be used to prove the presence of another, unless the 
one can not be absent without the other being present/' 

I admit it. But I answer, that the absence of life is 
the presence of death. Just as the absence of light is 
the presence of darkness. Or, in other words, the one 
can not be absent without the other being present. Mr. 
Lard seems to think that to be " dead in sins," and to 
be " depraved/' are two things. But they are surely 
two names for the same thing. 

Mr. Lard denies that depraved man is destitute of 
" moral worth." Whether he is or is not, depends upon 
the meaning of the term " moral worth." Moral worth, 
I take it, means the same as "moral rectitude" Moral 
rectitude consists in an inward and outward conformity 
to God's law. Well, that says : " Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and 
with all thy strength." And this one word "love," is, 
as Paul says, the fulfilling of the law. " Love," then, 
is " moral worth." Well, is not carnal man destitute of 
love? He who says no, contradicts the Bible. Now, 
as man is destitute of love, he is destitute of "moral 
worth." 

Mr. Lard says : " The expression, i dead in trespasses 
and sins/ with which Mr. Jeter terminates the preceding 
extract, and upon which he rests its truth, proves noth- 
ing in his favor. If an absolute death were meant, then 



168 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

perhaps it might; but such is not the case. A man ab- 
solutely dead is as incapable of sinning, as he is of being 
righteous, whether the death be that of the body or that 
of the spirit." 

Reader, let us notice this extract carefully. For this 
purpose I will take it up item by item : 

1. The expression "dead in sins" "proves nothing 
for Mr. Jeter." Now, let us see. Mr. Jeter says : 
"Man is without spiritual life." Does not this expres- 
sion prove that? If it does not why did Mr. Lard admit 
it? He says: "We admit that man is without spirit- 
ual life." Mr. Jeter says: "Man is without holiness." 
Does not this expression prove that? Can a man have 
holiness and yet be dead in sins? And why, I ask 
again, did Mr. Lard admit this also ? He says : " We 
admit that man is without * * * holiness." Mr. 
Jeter adds in the last place, " Without moral worth." 
This Mr. Lard does not quite admit. But the phrase, 
" not quite," does not allow of an unqualified denial. 
But we can very well afford to do without his admission 
here. I have shown to be dead in sins is to be without 
love, and to be without love is to be without "moral 
worth." So, after all, the expression fully sustains Mr. 
Jeter ! 

2. " If an absolute death were meant, then perhaps it 
might" sustain Mr. Jeter. 

Is not an absolute death meant? If a man has no 
life in him, is he not absolutely dead ? Well, our Savior, 
Christ, says: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.' 1 — 
John vi : 53. I again say, as love is life, he who is des- 
titute of love, is destitute of life, absolutely destitute. 
Well, unregenerate man is destitute of love, therefore 
destitute of life. Said Jesus : " I know you, that ye 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 169 

have not the love of God in you." — John v: 42. Man 
in a moral point of view, has not had merely a "faint- 
ing spell" He is not in a mere comatose state. His 
conversion does not consist in mere resuscitation. He 
passes from death unto life. He is quickened. Every 
converted man is as one alive from among the dead. 
He is "risen with Christ." — Col. iii: 1. Now, as an 
absolute death is intended, the expression sustains Mr. 
Jeter. 

3. "A man absolutely dead is as incapable of sinning 
as he is of being righteous." 

There is just as much truth in this statement as there 
would be in saying : "A man absolutely dishonest is as 
incapable of stealing as he is of paying his just debts;" 
or in saying : "A man absolutely avaricious is as in- 
capable of being covetous as he is of being benevolent ! " 
A man absolutely dead, in the sense of the Scriptures, 
is one wholly alienated from God. Is such a one as 
incapable of rebellion as he is of loyalty? He who would 
assert it would not know what he is talking about. 

§3. 

Mr. Lard thinks the very power to sin involves a vir- 
tual refutation of one of Mr. Jeter's chief objections to 
his theory of conversion, to wit: the impotency of mo- 
tives upon the sinner's will. 

" The power to sin," he adds, "is not the mere phys- 
ical power to sin, but the moral power. It is the power 
to sin or not, just as we choose. He who can not choose 
between sinning and not sinning, can not sin. And the 
power to choose implies the power to choose for rea- 
sons; and this of course, irfhat he who chooses is sus- 
ceptible of being determined by motives. This is all we 
contend for ; but in contending for this, it must be ap- 



170 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

parent that we contend not merely that the sinner can 
be determined by motives in some cases, but that he 
can be in all cases ; and hence, of course, in that of con- 
version." 

Then I suppose the question is the potency of motives, 
or their impotency on the sinner's will. Mr. Lard con- 
tends for the former ; Mr. Jeter for the latter. And, 
therefore, Mr. Jeter contends for the agency of the Holy 
Spirit in conversion, and Mr. Lard denies it! If the 
sinner can be determined by motives in all cases, con- 
version not excepted, of course motives are all that is 
wanting in the case, and the Holy Spirit may " stand 
aside ! !" 

There lurks ingenious sophistry in the above quota- 
tion from Mr. Lard. While it is very plausible, it is 
very false. When he says: " He who can not choose 
between sinning and not sinning, can not sin/' he seems 
to utter an axiom, but he utters a sophism. When he 
says, " The power to choose implies the power to choose 
for reasons, and this, of course, that he who chooses is 
susceptible of being determined by motives," we are 
almost ready to acquiesce, being blinded by the glare 
of its plausibility. But let us put the glass of revela* 
tion and facts to our eyes, and we shall see where lurks 
the falsehood. 

1. Let us take the case of the antediluvians. We 
read in Gen. vi: 5: "And God saw that the wickedness 
of man was great in the earth, and that every imagina- 
tion of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continu- 
ally." Were these antediluvians susceptible of being 
determined by mere motives to God and to holiness ? 
Then why did God abandon all effort for their reforma- 
tion, and repent that he had made them ? Why were 
they not converted by the earnest and terrific preaching 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 171 

of Enoch, when he thundered in their ears : " Behold, 
the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to exe- 
cute judgment upon, and to convince all that are ungodly 
among them, of all their ungodly deeds which they have 
ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which 
ungodly sinners have spoken against him?" — Jude 14, 
15. And why did Noah, that " preacher of righteous- 
ness/' have no better success? 

2. We know that a depraved disposition, a corrupt 
heart, one "deceitful and desperately wicked," will not 
yield to simple motives. This is the experience of the 
world. How often do we hear it said of an abandoned 
wretch: "He can not be reformed. You might as well 
expostulate with the winds as with him?" Yet, who 
ever thinks of acquitting him of blame on this account? 
The fact is, the more perverse and fixed the man is in 
sin and rebellion, the more criminal he is. The more 
powerless the motives to good are upon him, the more 
criminal is he. What is murder in the first degree ? Is 
it not homicide committed with malice prepense, afore 
thought? The more desperately set the heart is upon 
an evil deed, the more powerless are the motives that 
should dissuade from it; and yet no one thinks that this 
palliates or excuses the guilt: it only increases it. 

But when motives fail, the Spirit of God can succeed. 
In the case of the antediluvians, Enoch warned, Noah 
preached, but the Spirit of God ceased to strive. In just 
displeasure, God left them to perish in their sins. And 
as then, so now, let God say, "My Spirit shall not al- 
ways strive with man," (Gen. vi: 3,) and there will be 
an end of conversion. 

Mr. Lard seems to view the sinner as in a state of 
equipoise between sin and holiness, between Satan and 



172 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

God, between rebellion and loyalty; and that, hence, 
motives to holiness and sin have the same weight, and 
the man is as free to yield to the one as the other. Here 
is his mistake. The scale has already turned. Man is 
in a state of alienation from God. He has declared war 
against his Maker. The rebellion has broken out. And 
now the sound of the Gospel is heard amid the clangor 
of arms. We, who are "embassadors for Christ," and 
are praying men in his stead to be reconciled to God, 
are dealing with rebels. Here lies the difficulty in the 
way of success. But, thank God, as Joshua, when he 
led the hosts of Israel to battle, saw the Captain of the 
Lord's host standing with his sword drawn and ready to 
help him, so we hear our Master saying : "Lo, /am with 
you always, even unto the end of the world ;" and, 
hence, our hope that our Gospel will come to the people, 
" not in word only, but also in power, in the Holy Ghost, 
and in much assurance. 1 ' — 1 Thess. i: 5. 

3. The third particular Mr. Lard gives us from Mr. 
Jeter, is : " Man is alienated from God, and opposed to 
his law, and consequently to truth and righteousness. 
i Because the carnal mind is enmity against God ; for 
it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can 
be.' "—Bom. viii : 7. 

Mr. Lard then goes on to say: "The carnal mind, or, 
emphatically, the mind of the flesh, which is here said 
to be enmity to God, is something which, in this life, 
is never subject to the will of God ; indeed it can not 
be. No power can tame it. Hence it is lawless in the 
saint as in the sinner. There is this difference: the 
saint by the Spirit holds it in check; but the sinner is 
governed by it. Both can control it if they will, at 
least to a great extent, but neither can subdue it com- 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 173 

pletely. The determination to control it, the efforts so 
to do, and the partial success, make the difference be- 
tween the Christian and the sinner." 

I have quoted several strange paragraphs from Mr. 
Lard, but this, in my estimation, exceeds all its prede- 
cessors. The saint, it seems, is carnally minded as well 
as the sinner ! The mind of the saint is enmity against 
God as well as the mind of the sinner ! But the saint, 
by the Spirit, holds it in check; but the sinner, poor 
fellow, is denied the Spirit, and, hence, is governed by 
it ! Mr. Lard must give us more than his assertion be- 
fore we can believe all this. 

1. Is the Christian carnally minded as well as the sin- 
ner? Then what change has he undergone? If the 
Christian is carnally minded, who is spiritually minded? 
No : the sinner is carnally minded, but the Christian is 
spiritually minded. The sinner walks after the flesh, 
but the Christian after the Spirit. The sinner lives after 
the flesh, but the Christian, through the Spirit, morti- 
fies the deeds of the body. See Rom. viii: 4-14, in- 
clusive. 

2. Is it so that the " determination to control " the 
carnal mind, " the effort to do so, and the partial suc- 
cess, " make the difference between the Christian and the 
sinner? I thought that "they who are Christ's have 
crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts." — Gal. v: 
24. I have thought that the " difference between the 
Christian and the sinner," is this: that as "Christ is in 
the Christian, the body is dead because of sin, but the 
spirit is life because of righteousness." Does not 
John say, "Whosoever committeth sin is of the devil," 
while "he who is born of God doth not commit sin, be- 
cause his seed remaineth in him, and he can not sin 
because he is born of God?" And does he not say, "In 



174 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

this is manifest the children of God and the childrer. of 
the devil ?" (See 1 John iii: 8, 9, 10.) Does Mr. Lard 
know better than Paul and John? I presume not. 1 
had rather believe them than him. 

3. Not only does Mr. Lard teach that the Christian as 
well as the sinner is carnally minded, he also teaches 
that with his carnal mind nothing can be done. The 
existence of this carnal mind, he says, proves, not that 
the Holy Spirit is necessary to conversion, but that there 
is a principle in man that can not be subdued at all — 
can not be subjected to the law of God, either by the 
truth or by any other influence. Then I should like to 
know, in the first place, how man came by this principle? 
Is it an original principle of human nature? Then God 
put it there. Is it a consequence of Adam's sin ? This 
Mr. Lard has already denied. Will Mr. Lard give us 
light here ? 

I should like to know, in the second place, how it is 
that, if this principle can not be subdued at all — if it 
can not be subjected to the law of God, either by the 
truth, or an influence distinct from and above it, the 
Christian can hold it in check? How is it that both 
saint and sinner can control it to a great extent? How 
can we hold in check and control to a great extent what 
we can not subdue at all ? 

But is it true that nothing can be done with the carnal 
mind? Is it true that the Christian is possessed of a 
mind that is " enmity against God?" No: in regener- 
ation the principle is slain, and the cc love of God is shed 
abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost/' " If any man 
be in Christ he is a new creature/' — 2 Cor. v : 17. God 
"creates in him a clean heart and renews a right spirit 
within him." — Psalm li : 10. " He that loveth is born of 
God, and knoweth God, for God is love." — 1 John iv : 7 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 175 

11 He that loveth not, knoweth not God." Love and en- 
mity cannot dwell in the same bosom toward the same 
object. 

Again, I should like to ask if this principle of " enmity 
against God, which is not subject to his law, nor indeed 
can be," and which is in man, " cannot be subdued at 
all," if, "after his conversion this principle remains the 
same" in the Christian that it is in the sinner — what 
becomes of it at last? Does it go with the Christian into 
eternity? or does death destroy it? Seriously, I ask 
Mr. Lard for light here. Mr. Lard should reconsider this 
whole subject. He has left it involved in impenetrable 
obscurity. Will he answer the following questions : 

1. Is this carnal mind a part of man's original con- 
stitution ? If it is, then God is the author of it. This 
is horrible. 

2. If it is not, is it a consequence of Adam's sin ? If 
Mr. Lard says yes, he contradicts himself; for the " mind 
of the flesh " must be the same thing as that " form of 
depravity " which he admits we inherit. 

3. Is the "carnal mind" and human depravity or 
"frailty" the same thing? 

4. If not, then what is the carnal mind ? 

5. If it is, then where did we get it? 

6. If it is the same in the Christian after his conver- 
sion that it was before, what is done for the Christian in 
his conversion ? 

7. Is he renewed in the spirit of his mind? — Eph. iv : 23. 

8. If he is, then how can he still have a mind that is 
enmity against God ? 

§4. 

Mr. Lard states Mr. Jeter's second objection to Mr. 
Campbell's theory thus : 



176 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

"It (Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion) is obliviom 
of the chief difficulty in conversion ;" and then makes one 
admission which I can not refrain from quoting: "All 
must admit that the chief difficulty in conversion is a 
serious one, and that any theory which overlooks it must 
he extremely defective." " This witness is true/' Now 
what is the chief difficulty in conversion according to 
Mr. Jeter ? Mr. Lard says : 

"We shall let the following language of Mr. Jeter 
explain : 

" 'Mr. Campbell maintains that "the arguments which 
are written in the New Testament " must be " understood" 
in order to exert their influence on the human mind. 
(Christianity Restored, p. 350.) To understand these 
arguments requires attention, candor, and spiritual dis- 
cernment. Men attend readily to what they delight in, 
and believe easily what is congenial with their tastes ; 
but the " natural man," the unrenewed, sinful man, has a 
deep-rooted aversion to Divine truth. His aversion is 
an element and a proof of his depravity. He may 
hear or read the arguments contained in the Scriptures, 
through curiosity, politeness, or a captious spirit ; but 
to expect of him a candid, serious, docile, and obedient 
attention to them, is to expect to gather grapes from 
thorns/ " 

Here, then, we see that Mr. Jeter considers that a can- 
did, serious, docile, and obedient attention to the truth 
is necessary to that understanding of it which is essen- 
tial to conversion. But he thinks, also, that such an 
attention will not be given by the sinner without the 
influence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore he believes in 
the influence of the Holy Spirit in conversion. But 
Mr. Lard says, only three things are necessary in the 
premises : 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 177 

" 1st. That the argument or truth ' shall be within it- 
self intelligible.' 

" 2d. That we possess the ability to understand it. 

" 3d. That we give it the requisite attention." 

But he thinks it does not require "one particle of can* 
dor." And as for "spiritual discernment," he confesses 
that he knows nothing about it. And therefore, of course, 
he denies the influence of the Spirit in conversion. He 
says, to understand the Gospel so as that it may produce 
conversion, " requires common sense and nothing more." 
Reader, can that be so? Can it be so that the Gospel 
can convert a soul wherein there is not " one particle of 
candor" or spiritual discernment? 

Let us test this matter by examples. In John viii: 31, 
44, we have a discourse of our Savior, delivered with all 
his accustomed plainness and candor, in which he point- 
ed out the fact to his hearers, that they were in bondage 
to sin, and of their father the devil. But they did not 
understand him. Now, why did they not? Will Mr. 
Lard tell us? Were not all his requisites there? Was 
not the argument of the Savior intelligible? Had not 
his hearers the ability to understand? Then why did 
they not understand ? The Savior intimates that they 
lacked candor. " Why do ye not understand my speech? 
Even because ye can not hear my word." — V. 43. How 
is this? How is it they could not hear? Were they 
deaf? Not naturally so. They had ears, but they heard 
not. Did they understand, Mr. Lard? Perhaps you 
will say, " They did, but would not acknowledge it." 
Well, the Savior says they did not : so there is the dif- 
ference. 

Take another example — John ix. In this chapter 
we have an account of the opening the eyes of the man 
who was born blind. He was brought to the Phari- 
8* 



178 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

sees for examination. They asked him how he had re* 
ceived his sight. He answered, " He put clay on mine 
eyes, and I washed, and do see/' Here this testimony is 
direct, intelligible, and in point; but did it convince? 
No. They objected that the miracle was done on the 
Sabbath day. But being somewhat divided about the 
matter, they asked the blind man, "What sayest thou of 
him?" He answered, "He is a prophet." Now, why 
did they not say so too? Why did they say, "As for 
this man, we know him to be a sinner?" Was the blind 
man more intelligent than they? Did he give better 
attention? Rather, was he not more candid? But look 
further. They prosecute the examination. They call 
the parents and ask them if the man before them is their 
son, and if he was born blind. The parents testify to 
the fact that he was their son, and that he was born 
blind. Full proof was given that the eyes of a man that 
was born blind had been opened. And they say to the 
favored one, " Give God the praise, but we know that this 
man is a sinner." Now, how did they know that? Was 
it a legitimate conclusion from any premise or fact before 
them? It was not. Then how did they come to it? 
Disingenuousness, or the want of candor. The blind man 
said, " If this man were not of God he could do nothing." 
And had they as much candor as he, they would have 
believed, and said the same thing. Here he could very 
well say to them, " Herein is a marvelous thing, that ye 
know not from whence he is, and yet he has opened mine 
eyes/' 

So say I, and it can be accounted for only on the 
principle laid down by Mr. Jeter. Had these men been 
under the influence of those principles which Mr. Jeter 
says are necessary to a proper understanding of the truth, 
their investigations would have led to a very different 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 179 

conclusion to the one here recorded against them. They ; 
however, only had what Mr. Lard says is necessary, and 
hence they failed to appreciate this proof of the Divine 
mission of Jesus ! 

Paul says, that the Jews, " because they did not know 
Jesus Christ, nor yet the voices of the prophets, which were 
read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in con- 
demning him." — Acts xiii : 27. Now, how is this ? Why 
did they not know Jesus Christ ? Why did they not 
know the voices of the prophets ? Had they not all the 
requisites for which Mr. Lard contends? This same 
apostle tell us, u The natural man receiveth not of the 
things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness 
unto him, neither can he know them, because they are 
spiritually discerned." — 1 Cor. ii : 14. He also tells us 
that, " If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are 
lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the 
minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glo- 
rious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should 
shine unto them/' — 2 Cor. iv : 3, 4. And again he 
tells us, that, " God, who causeth light to shine out of 
darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light 
of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of 
Jesus Christ."— 2 Cor. iv : 6. 

Mr. Lard asks: "But how shall we secure the sinner's 
attention?" and then adds: " For clearly, according to 
Mr. Jeter, this is the chief difficulty in the way of his 
understanding the truth ; and indeed, according to our 
'scheme/ if we are to believe him, it would seem impos- 
sible." This is candid. But let us hear Mr. Lard fur- 
ther : 

" In the first place, we shall frankly grant that our 
1 scheme ' makes no provision to secure the attention of 



180 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

many of the human family. AYe mention the following 
examples : 

"1. Such as will not come to Christ that they might 
have life. 

" 2. Such as hate the light and will not come to it. 

" 3. Such as reject the counsel of God against them- 
selves. 

"4. Such as judge themselves unworth} T of eternal life. 

"5. Such as close their ears, and shut their eyes, lest 
they should see, and hear, and be converted. 

"6. Such as will not attend without a supernatural 
agency of the Spirit" 

Reader, do you not ask, "If the Campbellite 'scheme' 
has made provision for none of these six classes, for 
whom has it made provision ?" Where is the sinner who 
is not embraced in one or the other of these classes? If 
the Campbellite " scheme " has made provision for any 
sinner it must be one who will come to Christ, who loves the 
light) who yields to the counsel of God, who judges him- 
self worthy of eternal life, who opens his eyes and ears, 
and who will attend without any supernatural agency of 
the Holy Spirit. And if without any supernatural agency 
of the Holy Spirit, without any agency at all ; for the 
Holy Spirit has no other agency. But can such a sinner 
be found ? If such can be found, let him be exhibited. 
He will be a u rara avis." The Bible knows nothing of 
him. If there be such a sinner, I should like to know 
how he came to be a sinner. In what has he offended? 
What is his condemnation? Our Savior says: "This is the 
condemnation, that light is come into the world, but men 
love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are 
evil/' But the sinner for whom the Campbellite " scheme" 
makes provision, loves light rather than darkness ! Then 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 181 

what is his condemnation ? The Savior says : " He that 
doeth truth cometh to the light." But is he that doetl? 
the truth a sinner? There is no such a sinner as the 
Campbellite "scheme " provides for. It makes provision 
for the seventh class of sinners ; bid behold, there is no 
such class 1 1 ! Then it makes provision for none ! This 
I verily believe. 

Of the six classes specified by Mr. Lard, he proceeds 
to say : 

" For securing the attention of these classes, we are 
free to confess, our 'scheme' makes little provision ; and 
we shall only add, the Gospel makes none." 

Reader, here Mr. Lard begs the question. But we will 
let him proceed : 

"No, gentle reader; it is Mr. Jeter 's ''scheme' that 
makes provision for securing the attention and achiev- 
ing the salvation of all these classes! Has it not bound- 
less claims to our charity ?" 

It is to be presumed that Mr. Lard has spoken ironi- 
cally here, yet he has told the truth. One of our school 
once said to a Baptist Church, "Know ye not that the 
unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ? Be 
not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor 
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves 
with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, 
nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom 
of God. And such were some of you ; but ye are washed, 
but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of 
the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." These are 
the classes that our " scheme " makes provision for, and 
by it many of them are snatched as " brands from the 
burning/' 

Mr. Lard finally remarks : " But we have not yet an- 
swered the question, 'How shall we secure the sinner's 



182 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

attention V We reply, precisely as did Christ and his 
apostles, by presenting to his mind, as supremely worthy 
of his attention, immortality and eternal life ; and by 
showing him that these lie completely within his reach, 
on condition that he submit to the Savior. If neither 
these, nor the terrors of the Lord, move him, the wrath 
of God rests on him, and he is lost. Neither reason nor 
revelation sanctions any other mode of securing the sin- 
ner's attention." 

In this quotation there is a mixture of error and truth. 
We can secure the sinner's attention only by presenting 
such things as are calculated to secure it in an affection- 
ate and attractive manner. But what may the Spirit of 
God not do ? If immortality and eternal life, and the 
terrors of the Lord, fail to move men, is there no super- 
abounding of grace ? Will God, because he can justly 
punish the sinner, for refusing the Gospel, withhold the 
gracious influences of the Holy Spirit ? Has he not said 
to his Son, "Ask of me, and I will give the heathen for 
thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth 
for thy possession ?" And will he not make his promise 
good? Yes, the Savior rests secure on that promise, and 
he says, " All that the Father giveth me shall come to 
me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast 
out/' 

When Mr. Lard said, " Neither reason nor revelation 
sanctions any other mode of securing the sinner's atten- 
tion," why did he not add, " so far as we are con- 
cerned?" for surely he can not say, that neither reason 
nor revelation sanctions any other mode on God's part. 
Or is it his intention, by every possible mode of argu- 
ment, to exclude from his " scheme " the agency of the 
Holy Spirit? I wonder if Mr. Lard ever did, after pre- 
senting to his congregation " immortality and eternal 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 183 

life/' without securing their attention, go from his pulpit 
to the throne of grace, and there implore the aid of the 
Holy Spirit, expecting an answer to his prayer, and then 
return to the work with a stronger hope of success. If 
he ever did, or does, he does not believe his own argu. 
ment. 

§5. 

Mr. Lard states Mr. Jeter's third objection in these 
words: M Suppose this great difficulty obviated, the sin- 
ner's attention arrested, and truth brought clearly before 
his mind, would knowledge of Divine truth, without the 
special influence of the Spirit, secure his conversion ? 
To which, of course," says Mr. Lard, " the answer is, 
It would not." He continues — 

" Now, we reply, if Divine truth, when known or under- 
stood, effects not the conversion of the sinner, then his 
conversion is provided for by no system of religion which 
is Divine." 

Then stand aside, thou Holy Spirit ! Thou didst come 
into the world by virtue of the ascension and acceptance 
of the Son of God in heaven, to " reprove the world of 
sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." But all that 
Mr. Lard and his brethren give thee credit for, or allow 
thee to do, was done by thee eighteen hundred years ago. 
They are willing to admit that thou didst take the things 
which are Christ's and show them to the apostles, and 
thus furnish the truth with its proper evidences, but they 
will not allow thee to do anything more for the conver- 
sion of men. Mr. Lard and his confederates say they 
need thee not, they acknowledge thee not. They ascribe 
conversion to the truth, and the truth alone. But do 
not take thy flight with indignance from earth because 
thy influence is thus ignored by him and them. Stay 



184 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

with us, who still acknowledge thy agency, who need 
thy influence, and feel thy power. Our hope is in thee. 
We dread that solemn malediction : " Cursed is man that 
trusteth in man, and that maketh flesh his arm." While 
we " plant/' and "water," we look to thee for the "in- 
crease ;" and in every case of conversion we hear thy 
voice, saying : "Not by might, nor by power, but by my 
Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." 

Mr. Lard continues : "After propounding the preced- 
ing objection, Mr. Jeter adds : ' If ignorance is the only 
evil with which the Gospel has to contend, then, ob- 
viously, the illumination of the mind is all that is neces- 
sary for its removal. But ignorance, though it may be 
in itself criminal, is rather the effect than the cause of 
man's depravity. There is a corrupt disposition which 
blinds the understanding. " This is the condemnation, 
that light is come into the world, and men loved dark- 
ness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." — 
John iii : 19. The love of darkness, which signifies 
ignorance, or error, is the very root of man's depravity. 
This love implies an aversion to light, truth, and holi- 
ness, and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance of 
Divine things in the world.'" 

Reader, is not the above quotation from Mr. Jeter true? 
— every word of it true ? Yet hear what Mr. Lard says 
by way of reply : 

" The love of ignorance, then, is the very root of man's 
depravity : a love which implies aversion to light, truth, 
and holiness, and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance 
of Divine things in the world. These are certainly fear- 
ful results. But are they results of man's depravity? 
We shall concede for the present that they are, and of 
that inveterate form of it for which Mr. Jeter contends. 
Now, is man the author of this form of depravity? The 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 185 

present generation at least is not, since it is inherited. 
Has he the power to modify its intensity, or control it as 
a cause? Of course, he has not. Is he, then, respons 
ible for his love of darkness, his aversion to light, truth, 
and holiness, and his ignorance of Divine things? It is 
impossible. Indeed, concede the existence of this form 
of depravity, and these results become harmless as the 
sigh of the wind. And this is a legitimate result from 
Mr. Jeter's proposition. Deny it as he will, or explain 
it as he may, still it follows. Nor, indeed, is this all. 
The real conclusion from his position is, that man is the 
mere creature of necessity, with no more power to avoid 
being what he is, or doing what he does, than a stone at 
rest has to put itself in motion. We advocate no ( scheme' 
of conversion, certainly, which provides a remedy for a 
case like this, alike disgraceful to the Author of man 
and destructive of human accountability." 

I have here given the reader the full benefit of Mr. 
Lard's entire paragraph in reply to Mr. Jeter. Let us 
take it up, item by item, and look at it through the glass 
of Divine truth, that we may see its deformity. 

1. "Now, is man the author of this depravity? The 
present generation, at least, is not/' 

Then, what follows? that the present generation is not 
responsible for it? Let us see. Let it never be forgot- 
ten that depravity consists in the want of love, or, in 
other words, in enmity to God. Now, if there is any- 
thing which God has a right to require of his creatures, 
it is that they supremely love him. And if there is any- 
thing for which he can justly punish them, it is for their 
enmity to him. There is nothing unreasonable or unjust 
in the apostolic aphorism: "If any man love not the 
Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha." — 
1 Cor. xvi •. 22. But this enmity to God did not begin 



186 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

with this generation. It did not even begin with man, 
It began with the " angels that sinned," (2 Pet. ii : 4,) 
" that kept not their first estate, but left their own habita- 
tion." — Jude 6. Is man not responsible for it, there- 
fore ? He who answers " No," replies against his Maker. 

2. " Has he [man] the power to modify its intensity 
or control it as a cause ? Of course he has not?" 

Now, I ask, from what remark or position of Mr. Je- 
ter's does such a conclusion as this follow? Mr. Lard 
should have defined what he means by the word " power" 
here. If he confines the meaning of the term, as he 
ought to do, to the possession of means, then man has the 
power. But if he extends the meaning of the word so 
as to include disposition, then man has not the power. 
But the want of a disposition, as I have already shown, 
(see § 2 of the third chapter,) does not excuse the sinner. 
Pharaoh had the means of understanding the Divine 
mission of Moses, and through him the Divine claims, 
and of letting Israel go : but he had not the disposition, 
therefore he neither understood the one nor did the 
other. Will Mr. Lard say he could not? Will he say 
he was not responsible ? I will again say, that as volun- 
tary action depends upon the possession of means and dis- 
position both, when the latter is wanting, in one sense it 
may be said the man can not act; i. e., he can not act be- 
cause he will not act. A covetous man may be a mill- 
ionaire, but more than money is wanting to cause him 
cheerfully to relieve the wants of the poor. The Bible 
makes a distinction between having a thing in the power 
of the hand, and having that same thing in the power of 
the heart. — Compare Prov. iii : 27, 28, and 1 Chron. 
xxviii : 2, 3. Before a man can perform any Christian 
duty, he must have it in the power of his hand and heart 
both. If it is in the power of his heart only, he can 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 187 

not do it. If it is in the power of his hand only, he will 
not do it. Hence, if it is only in the power of his hand, 
there is a sense in which he can, and also a sense in which 
he can not. But he can not in no sense affecting his 
responsibility. 

When Jesus said : " No man can come unto me, ex- 
cept the Father who hath sent me draw him," he spoke 
the truth; and when he said: "Ye will not come unto 
me that ye might have life/' he also spoke the truth : for 
the latter is the cause of the former. 

The apostle Peter speaks of some who have " eyes 
full of adultery, and that can not cease from sin." — 
2 Peter ii: 13. Are they, then, responsible? Mr. Lard's 
logic would say they are not. Isaiah speaks of false 
watchmen that "can not understand;" are they there- 
fore excusable ? And Jeremiah tells us, that they to 
whom he spoke had " uncircumcised ears that could not 
hearken ;" were they therefore guiltless? 

But, then, if this matter did not begin with the present 
generation, can it be held responsible? Let us suppose 
a case : Suppose one of the States of this Union should 
rebel against the Government, and suppose that before 
it is brought back to its allegiance, two or three, or even 
more generations should pass away, but the last genera- 
tion should plead, that as the rebellion did not begin with 
them, they were not responsible for it, would their plea 
be admitted? Would not the Government respond that 
though the " present generation " might not be respons- 
ible for the beginning of the rebellion, it was evidently 
responsible for its perpetuity? So I would say of man's 
rebellion against God, though the " present generation " 
did not begin it, they perpetuate it, and for this they are 
responsible. Let us take another illustration, which will, 
perhaps, be more striking because it is from the Scrip. 



188 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

tures : The Jews eighteen hundred years ago rejected 
their own Messiah, with an invocation of his blood upon 
themselves and their children. The same spirit that then 
cried: " Away with him, crucify him," is now inherited 
by their children, and the curse is still upon them ! Is 
this right? May not the present generation of the Jews, 
availing themselves of Mr. Lard's philosophy, say: " This 
rejection of the Messiah, and this inveterate hatred of 
him, did not 'begin ' with us. We 'inherited' it from 
our fathers, and we are not to be held responsible ! The 
' cause ' of our opposition did not originate with us. It 
comes down to us from a generation long past; it is rooted 
and grounded in us ; therefore blame our fathers, but don't 
blame us I" 

In this case what would Mr. Lard do ? Would he say 
to the Jews : " You are right. True, you love darkness, 
you have an aversion to ' light, truth, and holiness,' but 
it did not begin with this generation. Go your way. 
True, the curse of God invoked by your fathers is still 
upon you, but it rests there unjustly !" I can not sup- 
pose that Mr. Lard would say this; but it is a just de- 
duction from the position he has taken. He must either 
plead for the innocence of the present generation of the 
Jews, or recede from his own argument ! 

3. " Indeed, concede the existence of this [Jeter's] 
form of depravity, and these results become as harmless 
as the sigh of the wind." 

That is to say, the more fully set man's heart is upon 
wrong, the less guilty he is in doing wrong ! Solomon 
says: "Because sentence against an evil work is not 
executed speedily, therefore the hearts of the children 
of men are fully set within them to do evil." Are they 
therefore innocent, Mr. Lard? 

Mr. Lard's argument amounts to this : If man is but 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 189 

partially alienated from Grod, if he is so far inclined to 
good that he needs nothing but motives to bring him back, 
why, then he is responsible. But if his heart has become 
so fully bent on evil, so set against God as to need a gra- 
cious and drawing influence of the Spirit to bring him 
back, why, then, his evil has become good! "It is as 
harmless as the sigh of the wind!" This is just as wise 
as to say : " If a man has a partial enmity to his fellow- 
man — if he is so far inclined to love his neighbor that a 
word of exhortation will bring him to duty, he is guilty ; 
but if his heart is wholly given to misanthropy and 
malice, so that exhortations have lost their power upon 
him, why then all his acts of violence and wrong toward 
his fellows, " are as harmless as the sigh of the wind !" 
He who can receive this let him receive it. 

4. " The real conclusion," says Mr. Lard, " from his 
[Jeter's] position is, that man is the mere creature of 
necessity, with no more power to avoid being what he is, 
or doing what he does, than a stone at rest has to put 
itself in motion." 

Create difficulties as you choose, Mr. Lard, but facts 
are facts notwithstanding. Can the Jew help being the 
successor of the crucifiers of Jesus ? Is he the cause of 
that envy and prejudice which delivered him to Pilate? 
Is it not of necessity that he belongs to a M scattered and 
pealed" people? Can the Mohammedan help his birth 
and education ? Is it not of necessity that he has his 
faith in Moslemism ? Are there not hundreds and thou- 
sands of the heathen involved in labyrinths of idolatry 
and superstition, entailed upon them without their knowl- 
edge or consent? Disguise it as you may, quarrel with 
it as you may, a wrong is a wrong, let it originate when 
and where it may. And he who perpetuates it is as re- 
sponsible as he who began it. Said Jesus to the Phari- 



190 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

sees : " Woe unto you ! for ye build the sepulchers of 
the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye 
bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers ; for 
they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchers/' 
Therefore also said the wisdom of God: "I will send 
them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall 
slay and persecute ; that the blood of all the prophets, 
which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be 
required of this generation." — Luke xi : 47-50. Now, 
this passage clearly teaches that the sins of past genera- 
tions become our own when we allow them. 

While Saul of Tarsus believed that Jesus was an im- 
postor, and his followers deceivers and heretics, and to 
persecute them was to do God service, could he do other- 
wise than persecute? But was he therefore innocent? 
Though Mr. Lard might apologize for him, and say : " As 
his depravity was inherited, and his opposition to Christ 
inveterate, and his ignorance of Divine things the result 
of the circumstances of his birth and education, he was 
of necessity what he was ; all his virulence and his breath- 
ings of threatenings and slaughter against the disciples, 
were as harmless as the sigh of the wind : for he no more 
could avoid being a persecutor than a stone at rest can 
put itself in motion." But Saul would tell him better. 
Methinks he would say : " Stop, Mr. Lard ; it is true that 
I was alive without the law once ; I was in my own esti- 
mation as touching the law blameless ; and I thought 
then that I ought to do many things contrary to the 
name of Jesus of Nazareth, but I want no apology offered 
for me. I am now willing to confess myself the chief of 
sinners. I was before not innocent, as you would repre- 
sent me, but a persecutor, a blasphemer, and an injurious 
person ; and the only palliation that the circumstances of 
my case will allow is, I did it ignorantly and in unbe 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 191 

lief. This makes my sins — not harmless as you would 
represent — but, just pardonable; that is all." 

5. Mr. Lard says : " We advocate no ' scheme ' of con- 
version, certainly, which provides a remedy for a case 
like this, alike disgraceful to the Author of man, and de- 
structive of human accountability/' 

Now, the plain English of this is : 

1. The degree of depravity for which Mr. Lard con- 
tends is not, but the degree for which Mr. Jeter contends 
is disgraceful to God. Now, how did he find that out? 
Can depravity in any degree be disgraceful to God un- 
less he is the author of it f If he is the author of it, then 
depravity in the smallest degree is disgraceful to him. 
God is the author of depravity in no sense nor in any de- 
gree, and therefore his character can not be affected by 
it, whatever may be the truth in regard to its degree. 

2. The degree of depravity for which Mr. Lard con 
tends does not, but the degree for which Mr. Jeter con- 
tends does destroy human accountability. I would again 
ask, how did Mr. Lard find that out? The idea is this : 
an innocent being is accountable. Well, this innocent 
being ceases to be innocent. The guiltless becomes 
guilty, the holy becomes unholy. Now, I should like to 
know how depraved he must become before he ceases to 
be accountable? How far must he go before he crosses 
the line of accountability? Mr. Lard would seem to 
say, he may hate God a little and yet be accountable; 
but if he have a settled and fixed hatred he ceases to be 
accountable ! A little depravity is very criminal, but if 
it become " inveterate" why it becomes " harmless as the 
sigh of the wind V 

Mr. Lard's objection just amounts to this : a little dis- 
honesty is criminal, but a great deal of it is harmless! 
Man is accountable for a little disaffection to God, but if 



192 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD ? S REVIEW OF 

he becomes completely alienated he ceases to be so ! 
There is a serpent coiled up in Mr. Lard's argument here. 
While he seems to be jealous of God's honor and man's 
accountability, he stings both. His argument is only 
the reiteration, but in another form, of the old infidel 
question : " Why doth he yet find fault? Who hath re- 
sisted his will?" He says that degree of depravity for 
which Mr. Jeter contends, (and which I shall show at 
the proper time is Scriptural,) is as harmless as the sigh 
of the wind. Then, of course, God should not find fault 
with it. He says it teaches that man can no more avoid 
being what he is, than a stone at rest can put itself in 
motion. Then, of course, man has not resisted God's 
will ! And now, though I have replied to him at length, 
I feel that Paul has furnished the best (and at the same 
time a most significant) reply, and I here record it: 
" Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest 
against god?" — Kom. ix : 19, 20. 

If Mr. Lard's "scheme," as he " frankly " confesses, 
makes no provision for any one whose " heart is deceit- 
ful and desperately wicked," (Jer. xvii : 9,) if it can not 
save any one who will not of his own accord receive the 
truth, without any drawings from God, or without the 
Holy Spirit working in them to will and to do, then his 
" scheme " makes provision for none. Jesus says he 
" came to seek and to save that which was lost." He 
came " not to call the righteous but sinners to repent- 
ance." His " scheme" reached "publicans and harlots," 
yea, even "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, 
abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, 
drunkards, revilers, and extortioners/' — 1 Cor. vi : 11. 
But Mr. Lard proposes to save only such as are of a mere 
peccable disposition. These gross sinners are beyond 
his reach ! ! I fear that the mere peccable, if such can 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 193 

be found, will find his " scheme " a broken reed. They 
had better not lean upon it. 

Mr. Lard complains " that there are some things very 
perverse " in Mr. Jeter's u mode of treating " his " view 
of conversion." " He [Mr. Jeter] treats it as if faulty, 
because it makes not provision to overcome every conceiv- 
able obstacle in the way of conversion ; and yet he pre- 
sents a no more feasible plan." He continues : " Does 
the Christian religion, we ask, contemplate the removal 
of all obstacles to conversion, and hence the conversion 
of all T 

I answer, the Gospel scheme of conversion yields to 
no obstacle as too formidable for that Divine eflBcienc}^ 
which makes the Savior's u people willing in the day of 
his power." — Psalm ex: 3. And the " Christian re- 
ligion " contemplates the removal of all obstacles in the 
way of conversion, except where it is limited by the sov- 
ereignty of God. (Rom. ix : 15, 24.) But Mr. Lard's 
" scheme " of conversion leaves every sinner to perish in 
his sins. Hear him : 

" But we do maintain that every removable obstacle in 
the way of conversion not only may be made to yield, 
but that it actually does yield, when it yields at all, to 
the truth and to the truth alone. The inherent brilliant 
light of the truth, its searching heat and power, no ob- 
stacle can withstand, save the voluntary and deliberate 
resistance of man. And against this resistance no pro- 
vision can be made."* 

There are just two points in the above quotation to 
which I would call the reader's attention, and close this 
number : 

1. '" Obstacles, where they yield at all, yield to the 

* Emphasis mine. — W. 



194 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

truth alone" Then, of course, they never yield to the 
Holy Spirit ! 

2. " Against the voluntary and deliberate resistance of 
man no provision can be made." Then against what 
kind of resistance can provision be made ? I know of 
no resistance that is not voluntary and deliberate. Now, 
as these two terms characterize the resistance which every 
sinner offers to the Gospel, and as Campbellism, according 
to Mr. Lard, not only makes no provision for its removal, 
but denies that any can be made, of course it should ac- 
knowledge its impotency and retire from the field. 

§6. 

Mr. Jeter's fourth objection : 

u The theory under discussion is contradicted by numerous 
well-authenticated facts" 

u In proof of which," says Mr. Lard, "Mr. Jeter pre- 
sents first this 'fact:' 'If all the converting power of the 
Spirit is in the arguments addressed by him in words to 
the mind, then it follows that every minister of the Word 
must be successful in converting souls to Christ, in pro- 
portion to the distinctness with which he presents the 
arguments of the Spirit to the minds of his hearers. 
The same measure of power must, under similar circum- 
stances, produce similar results. But does this conclu- 
sion agree with the experience and observation of Chris- 
tian ministers ?' " 

" We reply," says Mr. Lard, "if the power be uni- 
form, and the circumstances precisely similar, then the 
results will be so too. Now, we maintain that the con- 
verting power is in the truth, and hence, that the power is 
uniform" 

I have emphasized that part of Mr. Lard's reply to 
which I wish to call the reader's special attention. Mr 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 195 

Lard here fully admits that he and his brethren believe 
and u maintain " that "jolt" the converting power of the 
Spirit is " in the arguments addressed by him to the 
mind ;" or "in the truth," as Mr. Lard prefers to express 
it. Then, of course, as the Holy Spirit has put all his 
converting power into the truth, he is now, so far as con- 
version is concerned, poiver-~LT&ss ! Why, then, does Mr. 
Lard say, in his "proposition/' in conversion: u He oper- 
ates? 1 ' Can a powerless agent operate ? 

A second "fact" presented by Mr. Jeter, in support 
of his objection, according to Mr. Lard, is this : "Christ 
was an unrivaled preacher of the Gospel. (Mark i : 1.) 
' Never man spake as he did.' * * $ B u t what was 
the result of his ministry ? It was unsuccessful — not 
wholly so — but it produced no such results as from his 
pre-eminent qualifications might have been expected ; no 
great moral revolution, and no extensive revival of true 
religion." 

This fact Mr. Lard admits ; but how does he account 
for it? He says the Savior ascribed it, among others, to 
the following causes : 

1. "This people's heart is waxed gross," etc. 

2. " Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed 
me," etc. 

3. " How can ye believe who receive honor one of an- 
other?" etc. 

4. " Ye will not come unto me that ye might have 
life," etc. 

" But," says Mr. Lard, " among all the causes did he 
ever once mention a, want of power in the truth?" 

I would reply by asking, has not Mr. Lard already told 
us that the " voluntary and deliberate resistance of men," 
can "'withstand" the " power" of the truth? Now, as 
Jesus Christ, according to Mr. Lard, employed no powei 



196 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

but that of the truth to overcome this " resistance/' aj 
he failed to overcome it, to what else could he ascribe it 
but to the " want of power in the truth ?" 

But how does Mr. Jeter account for the Savior's fail- 
ure ? Mr. Lard quotes him as saying : 

16 The converting power' of the Spirit was not present — 
was withheld in wisdom and righteous judgment." 

This horrifies Mr. Lard. He says : 

" We blush for the pen that drew this libel upon the 
Divine character." 

A man should first be very sure he is right before he 
expresses himself as Mr. Lard has here done. Has Mr. 
Jeter here drawn a u libel" upon the Divine character? 
Reader, turn to the sixth chapter of the Gospel by John, 
and examine it carefully, and then judge between Mr. 
Jeter and Mr. Lard. In this chapter, one of our Savior's 
most important and impressive discourses is recorded. 
He delivered it to the multitude who sought him on ac- 
count of the u loaves and fishes" with which he had just 
miraculously fed them ; but it did not make one solitary 
convert. Now, to what cause does our Savior ascribe this 
fact? Verses 36 and 37 answer. " But I said unto you 
that ye also have seen me and believe not. All that the 
Father giveth me shall come to me." Again, verses 43 
and 44 say : " Jesus therefore answered and said unto 
them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can 
come to me except the Father who hath sent me draw 
him" And again, verses 64 and 65 say : " There are 
some of you that believe not. * * * Therefore said 
I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were 
given unto him of my Father." 

Now all these verses teach the following facts : 

1. This multitude were not converted by the Savior's 
preaching, though he preached to them the truth. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 197 

2. The reason assigned by the Savior is, the Father did 
not give them to him. He did not draw them. 

3. Therefore, for this reason they could not come to 
him. 

Will Mr. Lard call this a " libel upon the Divine char- 
acter f" Will he '• blush for the pen that drew " it. And 
now note particularly the " truth " was present here, but 
the Divine drawing was not present. Then the Divine 
drawing is something distinct from the truth. Note again, 
this Divine drawing was withheld. Now, how and why 
was it withheld ? Mr. Jeter answers, " in wisdom and 
righteous judgment/' This, as before remarked, horri- 
fies Mr. Lard. Well, I can not help it. He can not 
deny the fact. Then let him account for it as best he 
can. I am satisfied with Mr. Jeter's answer. 

I must direct the reader's attention to one more pas- 
sage. (Luke iv : 16-22.) "And he came to Nazareth 
where he had been brought up : and, as his custom was, 
he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and 
stood up to read. And there was delivered unto him the 
book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened 
the book, he found the place where it was written : The 
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed 
me to preach the Gospel to the poor : he hath sent me to 
heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the 
captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at 
liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable 
year of the Lord. And he closed the book and gave it 
again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all 
them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 
And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scrip- 
ture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and 
wondered at the gracious words that proceeded out of his 
mouth." 



198 AN EXAMINATION OP LARD's REVIEW OF 

Now, may we not suppose that the sermon the Savior 
preached on this occasion was most exquisite and inimi- 
table ? But what was its effect ? Did it make a single 
convert? Not one. His hearers only reproached him 
with his humble origin. " Is not this Joseph's son ?" 
Now, how did Jesus account for his failure ? Hear his 
own words : "And he said unto them, Ye will surely say 
unto me this proverb: Physician, heal thyself ; whatsoever 
we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy 
country. And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet 
is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, 
many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when 
the heaven was shut up for three years and six months, 
when great famine was throughout all the land ; but unto 
none of them was Elijah sent, save unto Sarepta, a city 
of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many 
lepers were in Israel in the days of Elisha the prophet ; 
and none of them was cleansed save Naaman the 
Syrian/' 

In this answer, we see a delicate allusion to the doc- 
trine of sovereign discriminating grace. In the days of 
Elijah, God selected one widow out of many. And in 
the days of Elisha, God selected one leper out of many. 
And so now " there is a remnant according to the elec- 
tion of grace/' Here was a fulfillment of the prophecy, 
" Though the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, 
yet a remnant shall be saved." 

This doctrine may fill Mr. Lard with wrath, but this 
does not prove it to be untrue. So it did them of the 
synagogue. And they thrust out the Divine preacher, 
and would have cast him down headlong over the cliff, 
or brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, had 
he not passed through their midst and gone his way. 
(V. 28, 29.) 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 199 

And whatever may be the feeling Mr. Lard may expe- 
rience, while contemplating this sentiment, our Divine 
Lord will say, " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven 
and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the 
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes ; 
even so, Father, because it seemed good in thy sight." 
— Luke x : 21. 

From the foregoing, the reader can see that Mr. Jeter's 
objection is fully sustained, and that Mr. Lard has failed 
— utterly failed — to meet it. 

Let us pass to Mr. Jeter's fifth objection : 

u Mr. Campbell's theory of the Spirit's influence is incom- 
patible icith prayer for the conversion of sinners. 1 '' 

I do not know that I can do the reader a better service 
than to lay before him all that Mr. Lard has said by way 
of reply to this objection, and add a few brief remarks by 
way of comment. He proceeds as follows : 

1. " Has God but one way in which he can answer 
prayer for the conversion of sinners — to wit, through an 
influence of the Spirit, distinct from and above that of tJie 
truth? If not, then the objection is void. Mr. Camp- 
bell's theory is certainly incompatible with prayer for the 
conversion of sinners through a c supernatural agency? 
but not with prayer for their conversion, in any way in 
which conversion ever happened/' 

In the above, the emphasis is Mr. Lard's. Now, let the 
reader note one thing Mr. Lard impliedly admits — the va- 
lidity of Mr. Jeter's objection, if God converts the sinner 
by an influence of the Spirit distinct from the truth. But 
he calls the objection u void," because he denies such an 
influence of the Spirit in conversion. And he frankly 
admits that Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion is in- 
compatible with prayer for the conversion of sinners 
through a supernatural agency. And now, be it remem- 



200 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

bered, that if the Holy Spirit has any agency at all in the 
conversion of sinners, it is necessarily a supernatural one; 
and if he operates in conversion at all, his operation is 
something distinct from truth, and hence Mr. Lard has 
here plainly denied the agency of the Holy Spirit in con- 
version. 

But let us hear him further : 

2. M Mr. Jeter is profoundly ignorant of the manner 
in which our heavenly Father answers, where he does 
so at all, the prayers of his children. We know not what 
we should pray for as we ought, and surely much less the 
manner in which these prayers are replied to. It is 
enough for us to know, that ' prayer for all men ' has 
been made a duty. Hence we pray for them, not because 
it happens to be compatible with some theory, however 
wise, but because God has made it our duty to do so. 
All beyond a conscientious discharge of our duty we 
leave with Him who works all things after the counsel 
of his will. That he does, in the way which to him 
seems best, answer or not these prayers, as they happen 
to accord or not with his gracious plans, and to be for 
the good of his erring children, we profoundly believe. 
When, now, Mr. Jeter undertakes to set Mr. Campbell's 
' theory of the Spirit's influence ' aside, after having so 
signally failed to do so in other ways, by an objection 
based on his profound ignorance of the manner in which 
God answers prayers, he compliments neither his head 
nor his heart." 

Now, reader, can you make anything out of the above 
quotation ? I can make only two things out of it : 

1. Mr. Lard can see no compatibility between prayer 
for the conversion of sinners, and his or Mr. Campbell's 
theory of conversion, for he had made no effort to show 
any. Had Mr. Lard seen any clearance to make it 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 201 

appear that there is any compatibility between his " the- 
ory" and prayer for the conversion of sinners, he most 
certainly would have made the effort ; for he shows too 
much feeling to remain silent if he had anything to say. 

2. Mr. Lard has mistaken the ground on which Mr. 
Jeter bases this objection. He says he u bases it on his 
'profound ignorance of the manner in which God an- 
swers prayer ;" when every one else but he can see that 
Mr. Jeter bases it upon the incompatibility of the 
Campbellite theory of conversion with prayer for the 
conversion of sinners ! 

3. " There is no duty upon the propriety and necessity 
of which Christian men are more cordially agreed, than 
that of frequent fervent prayer for the conversion of sin- 
ners. Any system of religion which should ignore it, 
would be justly exposed to the derision of all good men. 
Mr. Jeter knew, and admits, reluctantly we fear, that 
Mr. Campbell and his brethren believe in and practice 
this duty. And yet he wished to expose us, as a denomi- 
nation, to the odium which he knew could attach to a 
people only who repudiate the duty ; and this he sought 
to do by an effort to make it appear that our ' theory ' of 
Spiritual influence is ' incompatible ' with prayer for 
the conversion of sinners. There is not a more unmanly 
thing in his books, numerous as such things are, than 
the preceding objection. But in a work written to insult 
and not to refute, we could expect nothing better." 

Reader, I have now given you everything Mr. Lard 
has said in reference to this fifth objection of Mr. Je- 
ter's. And now let me ask you if there is the first thing 
said by Mr. Lard that answers the objection? If there 
is, it has wholly escaped my notice. It is true that Mr. 
Lard says : "Mr. Campbell and his brethren practice the 
duty of praying for the conversion of sinners, but that 
9* 



202 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

is no proof of the compatibility of their theory of con- 
version with it. The following facts will, I think, show 
to a demonstration that their "theory" is incompatible 
with prayer for the conversion of sinners. 

1. We have already seen that, according to their theory, 
all the converting power is now in the truth. Let me 
again quote from the eighty-third page of Mr. Lards 
book : 

" Divine truth is itself the vital power by which, in all 
cases, the Spirit effects conversion ; in other words, that 
the Spirit spends on the mind of the sinner, in conver- 
sion, no influence except such as resides in the truth as 
Divine, as of the Spirit. And we shall further add, that 
neither in quantity, nor in force, do we conceive that this 
influence can he increased and the human will be left 
free." 

Now, let any man, if he can, make the sentiments here 
uttered, compatible with prayer for the conversion of sin- 
ners. When a Campbellite prays to God for the conver- 
sion of sinners, what does he ask or expect God to do? 
He expects no new revelation of truth. He expects no 
new addition or increase of influence or force to be given 
to the truth already revealed. He expects nothing to 
be done for the disposition or will of the sinner. Then 
what does he expect God to do in the premises? Noth- 
ing whatever, as I can see. Here, then, is incompati- 
bility. 

2. Mr. Lard, as we have seen, (chapter ii, § 1,) denies 
that it is the duty of a sinner to pray for his own conver- 
sion. And he says, the position that he should, is one 
of the gross and fatal delusions of Protestants — that is a 
shame to the Baptist denomination that it should hold, 
and teach it — and that he has the most painful appre- 
hension as to the fate of those who hold and teach the 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 203 

doctrine. And though the sinner may, day after day, and 
week after week, and even year after year, repeat it, it is 
still a "fruitless prayer/' Then how can it be compatible 
for him and his brethren to pray for it ? Can it be right 
for him to ask God to do for the sinner what the sinner 
should not ask God to do for himself? 

3. According to Mr. Lard and Mr. Campbell, the sin- 
ner can not be converted unless he is baptized. Let us 
hear Mr. Campbell. In u Christianity Restored" pp. 200 
and 201, we read : 

"But the second discourse, recorded by Luke, from 
the lips of the same Peter, pronounced in Solomon's 
Portico, is equally pointed, clear, and full in support of 
this position. After he had explained the miracle which 
he had wrought in the name of the Lord Jesus, and stated 
the same Gospel facts, he proclaims the same command : 
' Reform and be converted that your sins may be blotted 
out;' or, ' Reform and turn to God, that your sins may 
be blotted out ; that seasons of refreshment from the 
presence of the Lord may come, and that he may send 
Jesus, whom the heavens must receive till the accom- 
plishment of all the things which God has foretold,' etc. 
Peter, in substituting other terms in this proclamation 
for those used on Pentecost, does not preach a new Gos- 
pel, but the same Gospel in terms equally strong. He 
uses the same word in the first part of the command 
which he used on Pentecost. Instead of i be immersed,* 
he has here i be converted/ or i turn to God;* instead of 
l for the remission of sins/ here it is, ' that your sins may be 
blotted out ;' and instead of, c you shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Spirit/ here it is, ' that seasons of refreshment from 
the presence of the Lord may come. 1 On Pentecost it 
was: 1. 'Reform;' 2. ' Be immersed;' 3. 'For remis- 
sion of sins ;' and 4. < You shall receive the gift of the 



204 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

Holy Ghost.' In Solomon's Portico it was : 1. 'Reform;' 
2. i Be converted ;' 3. ' That your sins may be blotted 
out;' and 4. 'That seasons of refreshment from the 
presence of the Lord may come/ that ' you may have 
righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit/ So 
read the different clauses in those two discourses to the 
Jews, expressive of the same acts." 

* % * " "Why the apostle Peter should have used 
'converted,' or 'turning to God,' instead of 'be im- 
mersed/ is, to the candid and unprejudiced reader of 
this narrative, very plain. After Pentecost the disciples 
immersed on that day having turned to God through 
Jesus, were spoken of by their brethren as discipled or 
converted to Jesus. The unbelieving Jews, soon after 
Pentecost, knew that the disciples called the immersed 
' converted ;' and immersion being the act of faith, which 
drew the line of demarcation between Christians and 
Jews, nothing could be more natural than to call the 
act of immersion the converting of the Jew. The time 
intervening between these discourses was long enough 
to introduce and familiarize this style in the metropolis, 
so that when the Christian said, ' be converted,' or ' turn 
to God' every Jew knew the act of putting on the Mes- 
siah to be that intended/' i. e., immersion. 

Here every reader can see that conversion with Mr. 
Campbell means immersion. 

Mr. Lard says of conversion : "It comprehends all that 
made the difference between the alien and the baptized 
person, and hence, of course, baptism itself." He there- 
fore contends, that " conversion and baptism must, to a 
certain extent at least, be identical/' He also says : 
" Baptism is that part of turning to God, which the word 
conversion more especially applies to." Now, I contend 
that if baptism is a part of that whole process of turn- 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 205 

ing to God, which we call conversion, if it is at all iden- 
tical with conversion, why then, no one can be converted 
without baptism; and hence, to convert a man, we should 
not pray for him, but baptize him ! 

Now, take the three reasons I have given, and do they 
not demonstrate that the Campbellite theory of Divine 
influence and conversion, is incompatible with prayer 
for the conversion of sinners? And now I would say 
to Mr. Lard, and all other Campbellites, that I do not 
thus argue to cast "odium" upon them, nor to "insult" 
them, but to convince them that Mr. Jeter's objection is 
well founded, and that they should yield to its force and 
abandon their untenable position on the subject of con- 
version and Divine influence. They acknowledge (and 
I am gratified that they do) the obligation of prayer for 
the conversion of sinners ; and now let them feel that 
this very fact requires that they believe in the " super- 
natural agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion" 

§7. 

Mr. Lard states Mr. Jeter's sixth objection thus : 

u Mr. OampbelTs theory of conversion is inconsistent with 
the introduction of the millennium ." 

Mr. Lard remarks : " In support of this objection, Mr. 
Jeter has written some seven pages; and yet in not one 
line of the seven, has he furnished a particle of evidence 
that his objection states the truth. It is an objection of a 
piece with the one immediately preceding it, [see last section,] 
strictly, an objection based on his ignorance. It amounts 
to this : Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion is inconsist- 
ent with something of which little or nothing is known !" 

I. Is it true that u not one line of the seven" pages 
written by Mr. Jeter, furnishes not " a particle of evi 
dence that this objection states the truth?" This ques 



206 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

tion is determined by another, namely : " Has Mr. Jetei 
given us a true definition of the millennium?" I will 
answer this question presently. 

II. Mr. Lard says this " objection " is " based" on Mr. 
Jeter's ignorance ; or " something of which little or noth- 
ing is known." Be it remembered, Mr. Jeter quotes Mr. 
Campbell's definition of the millennium; hence, Mr. Lard 
here reproaches him as well as Mr. Jeter. And, by the 
way, he does no great credit to himself, for he evidently 
shows that he, at least, knows " little or nothing" about 
the millennium ! and is, therefore, incompetent to judge 
or write in the premises ! And yet he modestly differs 
from Mr. Campbell, pronounces Mr. Jeter wrong, and 
intimates that the millennium will be introduced by 
"magnetism or submarine telegraphs!" 

Reader, let us now take up the question : Has Mr. 
Jeter given us a true definition of the millennium? 

Mr. Jeter says : " I will permit him [Mr. Campbell] 
to define what I mean by the millennium: 'There is 
reason, clear, full, and abundant, to justify the expecta- 
tion, that the reign of favor, or the government of Jesus 
Christ, shall embrace, under its most salutary influences, 
the whole human race ; or that there are plain, literal, 
and unfigurative, as well as figurative and symbolic rep- 
resentations, in both Testaments, which authorize us to 
expect a very general spread of evangelical influences, 
so that the whole race of men, for a long period of time, 
shall bask in the rays, and rejoice in the vivifying power 
of the Sun of Righteousness.' — Mill. Har., vol. i, p. 54. 
This consummation, described in the glowing language 
of prophecy, has been the grand object of the hopes, 
prayers, and labors of the saints in all ages. Whatever 
contributes to hasten this glorious period must, if its 
tendency is perceived, awaken universal delight among 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 207 

the lovers of Christ. Every principle, theory, or prac- 
tice, which is inharmonious with its introduction, is 
erroneous." 

Reader, is not all this correct? Let the following por- 
tions of Holy Writ answer : 

1. Rev. xx : 1-6, inclusive. [I must request the reader 
to do me and himself the favor of reading the passages 
I note. It would require too much space to transcribe 
all of them.] Here we see that the "old Serpent," in 
other places called u the Devil/' and " Satan," is to be 
bound a thousand years, during which time a glorious 
state of things is to be experienced and enjoyed by the 
people of God. To this agree the words of the prophets. 

2. Isaiah ii: 2-4, inclusive: "And it shall come to 
pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's 
house shall be established in the top of the mountains, 
and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all nations 
shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, 
Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, 
to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us 
of his ways, and we will walk in his paths : for out of 
Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord 
from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, 
and shall rebuke many people : and they shall beat their 
swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning- 
hooks : nation shall not lift up sword against nation, 
neither shall they learn war any more." This passage 
needs no comment. Its full realization, during the reign 
of the Messiah, no Christian can doubt. We look for 
this blessed state of things during the millennium. 

3. Psalm lxxii. Read the whole psalm. Note partic- 
ularly the following passages : " In his days shall the 
righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as 
the moon endureth. He shall have dominion from sea 



208 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. * * * 
His name shall endure forever ; his name shall be con- 
tinued as long as the sun : and men shall be blessed 
in him : all nations shall call him blessed." Is not 
the whole of this psalm, especially the parts quoted, a 
prophecy concerning Christ? Do we not look for its 
accomplishment in the millennium? 

4. Isaiah xi : 1-9, inclusive. Here Isaiah introduces 
to our attention our Divine Savior under the figure of the 
Branch that shall grow up out of the roots of the stem of 
Jesse. He tells us what he shall be, and what he shall 
do, and what shall be accomplished by his agency, and 
winds up by saying : " For the earth shall be full of the 
knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea/' Does 
not this look forward to the millennial reign of Christ? 

5. Isaiah xlix : 8-21, inclusive. This is another sub- 
lime prophecy of what shall take place under the reign 
of the Messiah. It can be fully accomplished only in 
the millennium. Then, indeed, the heavens shall sing, 
and the earth be joyful; and Zion, who had languished 
at times, and at other times obtained but partial successes, 
shall joyfully see her sons coming from far, and her 
daughters from the ends of the earth, and exclaim : 
" Who hath brought up these ? Behold, I was left alone ; 
these, where had they been ?"' The answer of God is : 
" Behold, I will lift up mine hands to the Gentiles, and 
set up my standard to the people : and they shall bring 
thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried 
upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing 
fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers : they shall 
bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and 
lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that 
I am the Lord : for they shall not be ashamed that wait 
for me." 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 209 

6. Isaiah, chapter lx, contains another glowing de- 
scription of what shall be accomplished under, and dur- 
ing the reign of the Messiah. The enraptured prophet 
begins by saying : " Arise, shine ; for thy light is come, 
and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For be- 
hold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross dark- 
ness the people : but the Lord shall rise upon thee, and 
his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles 
shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of 
thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see : 
all they gather themselves together, they come to thee : 
thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be 
nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt see, and flow to- 
gether, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; 
because the abundance of the sea shall be converted 
unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto 
thee." 

Thus continues this glowing prophecy, but I need 
not transcribe more. Remark is needless; explanation 
unnecessary. I must, however, record the last two verses : 
" Thy people also shall be all righteous : they shall in- 
herit the land forever, the branch of my planting, the 
work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one 
shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation : 
I the Lord will hasten it in his time." 

7. Daniel vii : 13, 14-18, 27. Read all these verses 
together. You see the Messiah coming in the clouds of 
heaven to the Ancient of days — the Father — and receiv- 
ing " dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, 
nations, and languages, should serve him." You see also, 
that the " saints of the Most High shall take the king- 
dom, and possess the kingdom forever and ever/' That 
" the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the 
kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the 



210 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is 
an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall servo 
and obey him/' And you finally see this is the consum- 
mation : "Hitherto is the end of the matter." We look 
for the perfect and full completion of this, only in the 
millennium. 

8. Zech. viii: 20, 21, 22: "Thus saith the Lord of 
hosts, It shall yet come to pass, that there yet shall 
come people, and the inhabitants of many cities. And 
the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, 
Let us go speedily to pray before the Lord, and seek 
the Lord of hosts ; I will go also. Yea, many people 
and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts 
in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord." Reader, 
does not this prophecy look for its full completion also 
to the millennium ? 

And now, do not all these prophecies fully sustain Mr. 
Jeter's (rather Mr. Campbell's) definition of the millen- 
nium ? And do they not render supremely ridiculous 
Mr. Lard's assertion, that the millennium is something 
about which little or nothing is known? 

III. Mr. Lard says : " But it is proper to hear Mr. 
Jeter's account of the manner in which the millennium 
is to be introduced. * It is/ he observes, ' most mani- 
fest that the millennium can not shed its blessings on 
the world without some new agency or influence, or some 
great increase of existing influences. We need expect 
no new revelations for our instruction, no new powers to 
be imparted to the human mind, and no new means of 
spreading the Gospel and enlisting attention to it. How, 
then, is the millennium to be introduced? By an in- 
creased efficiency of the Divine Word/ " Mr. Lard adds: 
"The millennium, then, is to shed its blessings on the 
world by an increased efficiency of the Divine Word 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 211 

Now, a more perfect conceit never haunted the brain of 
a Chaldean astrologer." 

Now, reader, let us see what saith the Scriptures ? 
Consult again the passages I have above cited. In the 
psalm quoted it is plainly stated that these wondrous 
things shall be done by the "Lord God of Israel" (v. 18.) 
In the second chapter of Isaiah, they are ascribed to the 
fact that "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word 
of the Lord from Jerusalem/' and that God " will teach 
us of his ways." 

In Isaiah xi, they are attributed to the fact that the 
" earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord/' and 
that the Messiah " shall smite the earth with the rod of 
his mouth" and that the Lord shall set his hand to do it. 

In Isaiah xlix, they are ascribed to the fact that God 
will make his mountains a way and his highways shall 
be exalted; that he would comfort his people and have 
mercy upon his afflicted ; that he would exercise toward 
them that tenderness of affection which a woman exer- 
cises toward her sucking child, and the son of her 
womb. And, finally, to the fact that God would " lift 
up his hands to the Gentiles, and set up a standard to 
his people/' 

In Isaiah lx, they are ascribed to the fact that the light 
of Zion had come, that the glory of the Lord had risen 
upon her, that the Lord had risen upon her, and the glory 
of the Lord should be seen upon her, etc., etc. 

I need not requote Daniel and Zachariah. Their tes- 
timony accords with these. They all show that Mr. Jeter 
is right, and that when Lard calls his view a "perfect* 
conceit," such as haunted the brain of a " Chaldean 
astrologer," he stops but little this side of blasphemy. 

I think every reader outside of the Campbellite ranks, 
and I hope many inside too, will have no difficulty in 



212 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

seeing that in all these prophecies the ordinary means of 
conversion are mentioned. But they are mentioned in 
connection with prophetic promises of increased efficiency. 
God will say of every impediment now in the way of the 
complete triumphs of the Redeemer, as he said of the 
difficulties in the way of the completion of the second 
temple, " Who art thou, great mountain ? before Ze- 
rubbabel thou shalt become a plain/' Our blessed Lord 
is our spiritual Zerubbabel. He is the man whose name 
is the Branch, and who is to build the temple of the 
Lord. And he will do it neither by might, nor by 
power, but by Jehovah's Spirit ; and when the last stone 
is carried up, it will be with shoutings of Grace, grace 
unto it. 

IV. Mr. Lard says, finally, " The objection obviously 
assumes that the millennium is to be introduced by con- 
version. But this we deny/' 

1. How can Mr. Lard deny this when he confesses 
that lie knows but little, if anything, about the millennium? 

2. How can he deny this in view of all the passages 
above quoted ? Let the reader refer to them again. Bead 
especially Isaiah ii and Zachariah viii. If we should 
consult only Revelation xx, we should see that Satan is 
to be bound and prevented from deceiving the nations 
any more, (v. 3,) and that the saints are to sit on thrones, 
and judgment is to be given unto them. Now all this 
must signify a spiritual exemption from Satanic molesta- 
tions, and an exalted position in the kingdom of Christ. 
And surely, all this implies conversion. 

I presume not to know the heart, but I can not divest 
myself of the impression that Mr. Lard felt the force of 
this objection. He saw that he could not admit Mr. 
Campbells definition of the millennium, and then recon- 
cile his theory of conversion with it. Hence he chose to 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 213 

differ from Mr. Campbell. But in differing from him he 
differs from a greater. He differs from the Spirit of In- 
spiration himself! Nor could he admit that the millen- 
nium will be introduced by conversion without placing 
himself in an equally embarrassing dilemma. Hence he 
ventures to deny this also. But he does not condescend 
to tell us what the millennium, in his judgment, is, nor 
how it will be introduced, nor the means that will 'be 
employed to bring it about. He calls the idea that it 
wall be brought about by " an increased efficiency of the 
Divine Word," a conceit as perfect as any that ever haunt- 
ed a Chaldean astrologer's brain, intimates that magnetism 
or a submarine telegraph may introduce it, and then closes 
by saying, " we feel compelled to pronounce his [Jeter's] 
present objection sheer nonsense ! I" 

Nothing is plainer to my mind than that Mr. Jeter's 
objection is well-founded, has been by him fully sustained, 
and is only made the stronger by this impotent effort of 
Mr. Lard's to meet it. 



Mr. Lard states Mr. Jeter's seventh objection thus : 
"The assumption under consideration [that the Spirit 
operates in conversion through the truth only] is incom- 
patible with the salvation of infants. They enter into the 
world, as Mr. Campbell admits, with depraved hearts.. 
Dying before they attain to years of intelligence, they 
must enter heaven with their moral natures unchanged, 
which is impossible ; they must be renovated by death, 
which is a mere figment ; they must be renewed by the 
Holy Spirit without the word, the possibility of which 
Mr. Campbell can not conceive, or they must be lost. I 
do not charge him with admitting this consequence ; but 
it appears to be logically deduced from the position which 



214 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

he assumes, and all his ingenuity has not enabled him t« 
escape from it." 

In reply to this objection, Mr. Lard says some things 
which he, I have no doubt, thinks are shrewd and witty, 
but I esteem them weak and useless. I will, therefore, 
pass them by in silence, and quote the only sentence of 
importance to us : 

"Mr. Campbell does not admit that infants are depraved 
in any sense which makes it necessary to regenerate them, 
either with or without the Word, in order to their salva- 
tion. 1 ' 

The emphasis is Mr. Lard's. 

1. I would remark, Then Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lard, 
etc., can not believe that infants are depraved at all, or 
they must believe that they take their depravity with 
them to heaven ! If they are depraved at all, what be- 
comes of their depravity when they die ? Does it go to 
heaven with them ? This is impossible : for nothing 
depraved or impure can go there. The "pure in heart" 
only shall "see God." Does it go into the grave with 
the body? This it can not do unless, either, 1st, it be- 
longs exclusively to the body ; or, 2d, some power sepa- 
rates it from the soul at death, that it may go with the 
body. But what could we call this separation but regen- 
eration ? 

2. If the soul of the infant is so pure as to need no 
change to fit it for heaven, at what period, and by what 
means, after infancy, does it become so impure as to need 
regeneration? How is it, that the soul of the adult, any 
more than the soul of the infant, needs to be changed 
to be fitted for heaven ? We need light here. If the 
soul of the infant is pure, (and this it must be to be fit 
for heaven,) we want to know at what period, and 
by what process, it became impure. The Pharisees sup 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 215 

posed that moral defilement came from without; but our 
Savior let them know it came from within. — Matt, xv : 
17, 18. The heart, as a well-spring, sends up its waters, 
and they are like itself. Now, if the heart of the infant 
is at first pure, how comes it to be afterward defiled ? 

3. It matters not, so far as Mr. Jeter's present objec- 
tion is concerned, whether the infant has to be regener- 
ated to fit it for heaven, or not; we know that infants 
have been the subjects of the Spirit's influence, and this 
proves that he can and does operate (or, at least, has 
operated) without the Word. Proof: Jeremiah i: 5: 
11 Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and 
before thou earnest forth out of the womb, I sanctified 
thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." 
Mr. Lard may object to this text that it simply says, Jer- 
emiah was sanctified before he came from the mother's 
womb, but this sanctification does not necessarily imply 
an influence of the Spirit. I think it does. I can not 
see how God can sanctify any one and yet put forth no 
influence. But I will back this text with another that 
leaves no room for dodging. " But the angel said unto 
him, Fear not, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard, and 
thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt 
call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and glad- 
ness, and many shall rejoice at his birth : For he shall 
be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither 
wine, nor strong drink, and he shall be filled with the 
Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." There it 
is. Did not the Holy Spirit take possession of John's 
heart, and dwell there, without the means of the truth ? 
This text, then, forever explodes and scatters to the wind, 
the word "only" at the end of Mr. Lard's proposition. 
And with this we are content. As to how infants are 
fitted for heaven, I deem it unnecessary, here, to say 



216 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

anything further than this : It will be done in such a 
manner as to fit them to join all the redeemed in cease- 
less adorations to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, for their salvation. They will be the subjects of 
the same spiritual and physical resurrection. When the 
redeemed from earth shall exclaim, "Unto him that loved 
us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, " etc., 
I do not suppose that those saved in infancy will be 
silent. And when the Lamb in the midst of the throne 
received the book from the hand of him that sat on the 
throne, and all the inhabitants of heaven were moved 
with adoring rapture, u and they sang a new song, saying, 
' Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals 
thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to 
God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and 
people, and nation," — I do not suppose that infants' 
spirits, who had already gone to heaven, saw any incon- 
gruity in their joining in the anthem. But if Christ 
redeemed them by his blood, they were under the curse 
as well as others. If he washed them from their sins, as 
well as others, they were also defiled ; and this he did, 
if these heavenly songs are compatible to them. 

4. It is a circumstance, in my estimation, more than 
suspicious, that Mr. Lard's, alias Mr. Campbell's, theory, 
requires so many denials of truths long and generally 
received. They themselves should suspect their own the- 
ory. I hope they will, and give it a serious and candid 
re-examination. It is a fearful thing to invent and advo- 
cate a theory that makes man so pure and innocent as to 
render the influence of the Holy Spirit unnecessary, and 
takes a large portion of an apostate race to heaven with- 
out any moral renovation ! 

I pass to Mr. Jeter's eighth objection, as stated by Mr, 
Lard : 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 217 

" Mr. Campbell's assumption [the Spirit's operating 
through the truth only~\ is wholly at war with the Scripture 
doctrine of Satanic influence. 

" Satan and other evil spirits are represented in the 
Bible as exerting a mighty moral influence for the 
destruction of men. They tempt, deceive, enslave, and 
degrade mankind. Satan is a mighty prince, and at the 
head of a great and spreading empire. But how do the 
evil spirits exert an influence over the minds of men ? 
By arguments or motives addressed to them, by words, 
oral or written ? Certainly not ; but by a direct, inter- 
nal, and efficient influence. " 

Mr. Lard replies to this objection, as usual, by denying. 
He says : 

1. " We deny utterly that Satan exerts any direct in- 
fluence on the human mind." 

As to whether Satan does, or does not, exert any direct 
influence on the human mind, we can know nothing only 
as Divine revelation may enlighten us. Reader, let me 
lay before you what God has said on this subject. John 
xiii : 27: u And after the sop, Satan entered into him, 
[Judas.] Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, 
do quickly." Here, it is obvious that our blessed Lord 
alluded to his betrayal by Judas ; and that Judas was 
instigated by the devil to betray him. Now, was not this 
instigation direct ? I think any one but a Campbellite 
will answer affirmatively. Take another example. Acts 
v: 3: "But Peter said to Ananias, Why hath Satan 
filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep 
back part of the price of the land?" Now, how did 
Satan fill Ananias's heart? Was it not by a direct influ- 
ence ? I will cite but one more example. 1 Chronicles 
xxi: 1 : "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked 
David to number Israel." The law of God says, " Out 
10 



218 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

of the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall 
be established/' These examples shall therefore suffice. 

Reader, examine these examples, and then consider the 
following from Mr. Lard : 

" We deny that he does it, \i. e., exert a direct influ- 
ence upon the human mind.] The question is a question 
of fact, which should not have been assumed, as it has 
been, but proved, or not made the basis of an objection. 
It is a sheer fiction invented for a special purpose/' 

When men talk in this way they ought to be very sure 
that they are right. It is an easy thing to call a doctrine, 
or a fact, a "sheer fiction." It is easy to say "we deny" 
so and so, but it is a hard thing to " kick against the 
goads/' 

Mr. Lard finally remarks : " But even granting, as 
already stated, that Satan does exert a direct influence on 
the mind, is it possible that Mr. Jeter can make this the 
ground of an argument as to what the Spirit does ? Does 
he mean to teach, because Satan can do a thing, and 
does it for wicked ends because he can, that we are 
therefore to conclude that the Holy Spirit does the same 
thing." 

No, Mr. Lard. We do not conclude that the Holy 
Spirit does the "same thing/' i. e., exert a direct influ- 
ence on the mind for wicked ends. But go on. 

" This is the pith of his argument; and yet he affects 
to be jealous of the honor of the Holy Spirit. How dare 
he assert, conceding his position to be correct, that the 
enormity of Satan's sin consists not in this very thing — 
that he does, because he can — exert a direct influence on 
the mind ? For aught he knows, this may make the 
great trenching difference between the Spirit's inter- 
course with man and Satan's — a difference which makes 
the intercourse of the latter intensely wicked/' 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 219 

Now, reader, does not that sound exceedingly strange ? 
coming, as it evidently does, from a man of some ability. 
If I were not fearful that some one might think it an 
exemplification of the apostolic adage, " Evil communi- 
cations corrupt good manners," I would adopt Mr. Lard's 
language here, and say : " A more perfect conceit never 
haunted the brain of a Chaldean astrologer " than this — 
that the intense wickedness of Satan consists in his ex- 
erting direct influence on the human mind. His wicked- 
ness consists, not in how he influences the human mind, 
but, in the tendency and object of the influence. As Satan 
always influences to a had end, he is wicked, " intensely 
wicked," whether the manner of his influence be "direct" 
or indirect. Surely a child can understand this. And 
for Mr. Lard to say, that "for aught" Mr. Jeter "knows" 
this fact, that Satan's influence is direct and the Spirit's 
not, "may make the great trenching difference between" 
them, is to make his own ignorance the standard by 
which he judges Mr. Jeter. Who is it that does not 
know that the "great trenching difference between" 
Satan and the Spirit of God is, the former always influ- 
ences to evil and the latter to good? I can think of no 
one, possessed of a sane mind, who' does not know this, 
unless it is Mr. Lard. 

Reader, let me ask you if Mr. Campbell's aad Mr. 
Lard's theory, that the Holy Spirit operates in conver- 
sion through the word only, that he has no direct influence 
upon the sinner, does not give the Devil the advantage? 
He has all the instrumentality which the sophistry of 
infidels and errorists can supply, and a direct agency or 
influence on the human heart, besides. But the Spirit 
of God has no access excepting through his Word, written 
or spoken ! We can admit no such advantage to Satan, 
hence we discard the theory that gives it to him ! 



220 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

I will pass to notice Mr. Jeter's ninth objection as 
stated by Mr. Lard : 

M Objection 9. ' The assumption that the Spirit can 
(does) operate on the soul of man, in conversion only, 
by arguments or words, is not only unphilosophical, but 
contrary to divinely recorded facts. It is not true that 
physical power can not produce a moral effect. * * * 
Christ was created holy. "The Holy Ghost shall come 
upon thee," said the angel to Mary, u and the power of 
the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore that holy 
thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
Son of God/' — Luke iv: 35. Was not the holiness of 
the infant Redeemer a moral quality? and was not this 
effect produced, not by arguments, persuasions, or words, 
but by the power — the physical power of the Highest/ " 

Upon this, Mr. Lard rings the following changes : 

u The holiness of the infant Redeemer ivas created, 
was it f Created exactly as a brad or an oyster is crea- 
ted; created, too, by the physical power of the Almighty! 
It was then a mere created thing, and hence, per se, of 
no more value than the color of a goose.'' 

I do not know how to name what Mr. Lard has here 
said. Is it weakness ? or is it madness ? Is it the scoff 
of a skeptic ? or is it the utterances of an imbecile ? I 
will let the reader say. 

1. I never supposed that any one doubted that the 
man Christ Jesus was " holy, and harmless, and unde- 
fined, and separate from sinners " by virtue of his mirac- 
ulous conception — that his holiness was a part of his 
nature, produced, as other parts, by the Holy Grhost. 
That it was " created." Had the holiness of the infant 
Jesus any existence before he existed ? I presume not. 
Then was it not created with him ? Remember, Mr. Jeter 
speaks of the holiness of the human nature of Christ, 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 221 

not of the Divine that dwelt in him. Now, God the 
Father, by his Spirit, created the body in which God the 
Son was manifested. And he either created it holy, or he 
did not. And, before Mr. Lard affects such astonish- 
ment at the view Mr. Jeter has given, it becomes him to 
tell how the Divine Word took upon him our nature with- 
out sin. 

2. Strange that Mr. Lard should regard created holi- 
ness as valueless as the " color of a goose !" God made 
man upright, he made a goose gray. Is upright and gray 
of equal value ? Shame, shame ! that a man of Mr. 
Lard's pretensions should make an assertion like this. 
Did not the same God that gave an angel his being give 
him his holiness ? Is it not a part of his being ? And 
yet is it as valueless as the color of a goose ? 

There can be no better proof of the erroneousness of 
Mr. Lard's theory, than it gives, in its impelling him to 
such strange, and weak, and silly assertions in its defense. 
And there can be no better proof of the force and validity 
of this " objection " to his theory, than this weak attempt 
to meet it. 

Mr. Lard mentions but one more objection as urged by 
Mr. Jeter, to his theory of the Spirit's influence in con- 
version. I need not notice it here, as what he says by 
way of reply is valueless, and would add nothing to what 
we have already considered. 

Now, reader, you have before you an examination of 
all that Mr. Lard has said, both by way of arguing his 
own side of this question, and by way of meeting Mr. 
Jeter's objections. Can you say of his theory as he has 
done : " We never felt more profoundly penetrated with 
the conviction of its truth than now !" I must say, that 
I never felt more profoundly penetrated with the convic- 
tion of its falsehood than now. I have weighed Mr. 



222 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Lard's arguments and his replies to Mr. Jeter's objec- 
tions, I have brought them to the test of Scripture and 
reason, and I must say they are found wanting. 

Let me appropriate the finest passage in Mr. Lard's 
book to my side of the question, and then the logic will 
be worthy of the rhetoric. 

" These feeble " arguments and " objections," to our 
view of the agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion, 
" have melted at its base, like snow at the foot of the 
Andes, and still it stands. Mists may gather around it, 
and objections lie on its outskirts ; but still it towers far 
up into a region where mists never gather, and objections 
never collect. Its luster may be obscured for a day; but, 
like the sun marching behind a pavilion of cloud, it will 
gleam forth at last all the brighter for the transient ob- 
scurity. We commend it, therefore, to the confidence 
of all good men, and commit it to the safe-keeping of 
God." 



jeter's oampbellism exposed. 223 



CHAPTER V. 

the influence of the holy spirit in conversion. 

(Continued.) 
§ 1- 

IN this chapter I enter upon the presentation of a few 
arguments in favor of our side of this question. After 
what has already been done, I deem it unnecessary to say 
much. I shall only offer some arguments additional to 
those offered by Mr. Jeter. I hope his book and mine 
will be helps to each other in presenting and sustaining 
the truth. Let the reader consult both. 

The reader will, no doubt, remember that Mr. Lard 
has again and again alluded to the argument from human 
depravity. He virtually admits that if man is depraved 
to the extent that Mr. Jeter says he is, it follows that the 
influence of the Holy Spirit is necessary in conversion. 
But he denies that man is thus depraved, and, therefore, 
the influence of the Holy Spirit in conversion. 

In this section, then, I will discuss the question of 
depravity. In doing this, I deem it necessary to requote 
some things that have already passed under review. I 
hope, however, that the patience of the reader will not 
be too severely taxed. Much patience should be exer- 
cised in this investigation. The points at issue are mat- 
ters of first importance, and will, therefore, richly repay 
all our labor. 

On page 84, at the close of his first argument, Mr. Lard 
gays : 

"And what is here said suggests the true theory of the 



224 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

argument usually urged from depravity in defense of an 
influence above, or not in the truth. It is first assumed 
that man is totally, or as Mr. Jeter has it, * utterly depraved. 
It is then urged that this utter depravity, or rather the 
resistance which is met with from it in conversion, can 
not be overcome by any force of Divine truth, however 
great, and that there is hence a necessity for another and 
greater influence. But, instead of assuming this, which 
is the main point in the argument, let the advocates of 
this peculiar influence come forward and show us, either 
by indisputable and pertinent facts, or passages of Holy 
Writ clear and relevant, that man is thus depraved; then, 
and not till then, will their argument be of any force or 
entitled to any respect." 

Well, I accept the issue here made by Mr. Lard. It is 
then understood, that if human depravity as taught by 
Mr. Jeter is Scriptural, the agency of the Holy Spirit in 
conversion is proved. That I may not unnecessarily 
pass over the same ground, I refer the reader to what has 
already been said in chapter iv, §§ 1 and 2. I would 
especially remind him that Mr. Lard holds that man's 
present condition is but little, if any, worse than was 
Adam's before he sinned. And now, reader, having all 
these matters before you, proceed with me to the follow- 
ing additional proofs : 

1. Gen. vi : 5 : "And God saw that the wickedness 
of man was great in the earth, and that every imagina- 
tion of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continu- 
ally/' Can language be stronger or more in point than 
this ? Learned men tell us that the Hebrew word ren- 
dered "imagination/' signifies also, the " purposes and 
desires." If it is true (and true it is, if the word of 
God is true) that every imagination, purpose, and desire 
of the thoughts of man's heart is only evil, and that con- 



JETER S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 225 

tinually, Mr. Jeter's is the true position, and Mr. Lard's 
the false. 

2. Gen. viii : 21 : " The Lord said in his heart, I will 
not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for 
the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth : 
neither will I again smite any more everything living as I 
have done." This passage shows that though God had 
brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly, it had 
wrought no change in man's nature. What he was be- 
fore the flood, he was after it: still, therefore, "utterly 
depraved." 

3. Psalm xiv : 2, 3 : " The Lord looked down from 
heaven upon the children of men ; to see if there were 
any that did understand and seek God. They are all 
gone aside, they are altogether become filthy : there is 
none that doeth good, no, not one." This passage needs 
no comment. It speaks for itself. None can innocently 
mistake its meaning, especially when it is remembered 
what the apostle says about it — see Romans iii : 9-12 : 
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: 
for we have before proved [see chapter i] both Jews and 
Gentiles, that they are all under sin ; as it is written, 
There is none righteous, no, not one : there is none that 
understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 
They are all gone out of the way, they are together be- 
come unprofitable : there is none that doeth good, no, 
not one." 

The apostle continues : " Their throat is an open sep- 

ulcher ; with their tongues they have used deceit : the 

poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of 

cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. 

Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way 

of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God 

before their eyes." (Compare Psalm v: 9; Psalm cxl : 3; 
10* 



226 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

Psalm x : 7 ; Isaiah lix : 7-8; and Psalm xxxvi : 1.) All 
these passages the apostle quotes to prove his own affirm- 
ation, that he had " before proved both Jews and Gen- 
tiles, that they were all under sin." 

Let us now see what the apostle had before said : "For 
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all 
ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the 
truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be 
known of God, is manifest in them ; for God hath showed 
it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the 
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood 
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and 
godhead ; so that they are without excuse : because that 
when they knew God they glorified him not as God, 
neither were thankful, but became vain in their imagin- 
ations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing 
themselves to be wise, they became fools ; and changed 
the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made 
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed 
beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave 
them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own 
hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves : 
who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped 
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is 
blessed forever. Amen. 

" For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections. 
For even their women did change the natural use into 
that which is against nature : and likewise also the men, 
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their 
lust one toward another ; men with men working that 
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that 
recompense of their error which was meet. And even 
as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, 
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 227 

things which are not convenient : being filled with all 
unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, 
maliciousness ; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, ma- 
lignity ; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despite- 
ful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient 
to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, 
without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. " 

A darker picture can not be drawn than the one which 
the apostle has drawn here. Every term, almost, furnished 
by the English language to express extreme depravity, 
wickedness, and guilt, have been employed. How sig- 
nificant, then, the question, " What then ? are we better 
than they?" And how forcible the answer, "No, in no 
wise : for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, 
that they are all under sin." 

Reader, with whose position on human depravity do all 
these Scripture quotations agree ? Mr. Jeter's or Mr. 
Lard's ? I will place what Mr. Jeter and Mr. Lard have 
said side by side, that you may the better judge. 

MR. JETER'S VIEW. MR. LARD'S VIEW. 

" The Spirit of inspiration has "But this frailty or weakness 
drawn the picture of man's moral is not sin ; it is only a condition 
corruption in gloomy colors. He without which there had been no 
is utterly depraved, fleshly, sen- sin. Nor is it a consequence of 
sual, and impure. 'That which Adam's sin. Adam possessed it 
is born of the flesh, is flesh.' — before he sinned, else he had not 
John iii : 6. He is without spir- sinned ; hence, it is not a conse- 
itual life, without holiness, with- quence of his sin. It is, however, 
out moral worth — ' dead in tres- a condition of sin, since without 
passes and sins.' — Eph. ii: 1. He it Adam could not have sinned; 
is alienated from God, and oppos- but it is only a condition. Nor, 
ed to his law, and, consequently, perhaps, will facts warrant the 
to truth and righteousness. 'Be- conclusion that this frailty is, 
cause the carnal mind is enmity even in our case, greatly increas- 
against God : for it is not subject ed. For greater weakness in sin- 
to the law of God, neither indeed ning was never displayed than 



228 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

mr. jeter's view. mr. lard's view. 

can be.' — Rom. viii : 7. This de- by Adam. He yielded to the first 
pravity pervades and controls the temptation ever presented to him, 
whole man, blinding the mind, without, so far as we know, offer- 
perverting the affections, stupe- ing the slightest resistance. No 
fying the conscience, making re- one of his descendants ever did 
bellious and obstinate the will, more." 
and prostituting the members of 
the body as the instruments of 
sin. And this moral corruption 
of human nature is universal. 
'For all have sinned and come 
short of the glory of God.' — Rom. 
iii: 23." 

There is one fact characteristic of these quotations 
from Mr. Jeter and Mr. Lard ? to which I must invite the 
reader's attention, to wit : Mr. Jeter's abounds with Scrip- 
ture quotations, while Mr. Lard's has not a solitary one! 
There is also another fact worthy of being noted, namely: 
Mr. Jeter's abounds in Scripture phraseology, w 7 hile Mr. 
Lard's is wholly destitute! Then it certainly follows 
that Mr. Jeter's is supported by the word of God, while 
Mr. Lard's is antagonistic to it. 

There is but one more point to which I deem it- neces- 
sary to pay attention. Mr. Lard says, our " frailty," or 
"weakness," or "depravity," is not a " consequence of 
Adam's sin." Now, reader, what does Paul say ? Let 
us go to the fifth chapter of his epistle to the Romans. 
Now, let us begin to read at the twelfth verse : " Where- 
fore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death 
by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all 
have sinned: (for until the law, sin was in the world: 
but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Neverthe- 
less death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them 
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans- 
gression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But 






jeter's campbellism exposed. 225 

not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through 
the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace 
of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, 
Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not that 
it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judg- 
ment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of 
many offenses unto justification. For if by one man's 
offense death reigned by one ; much more they which 
receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteous- 
ness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, 
as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For 
as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, 
so by the obedience of one shall many be made right- 
eous." 

I do not know how to add, either to the force, perspi- 
cuity, or point of the above quotation. It evidently 
teaches the very thing which Mr. Lard denies. Paul 
plainly asserts that three things come upon all men in 
consequence of Adam's sin : 

1. Sin, and consequently death. tl By the disobedi- 
ence of one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin." 

2. Judgment or condemnation. " The judgment was 
by one [Adam] to condemnation." 

3. Depravity or guilt. " For as by one man's [Adam's] 
disobedience many were made sinners." 

I deem it unnecessary to quote another passage or add 
another remark. Still, there are two passages I will re- 
quest the reader to compare, to wit: Gen. v: 3: "And 
Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and begat a son 
in his own image. 1 ' 1 Cor. xv : 47-49 : " The first man 
is of the earth, earthy. * * * As is the earthy, 



230 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

such are they also that are earthy. * * * And as 
we have borne the image of the earthy," etc. The first 
passage evidently means that the son whom Adam begat, 
was like himself, a depraved human being. And the sec- 
ond therefore means, that all men, as descendent of 
Ajiam are subject to sin, disease, and death. 

Here, then, I close my first argument: Man is utterly 
depraved, therefore the influence of the Holy Spirit is nec- 
essary in conversion. 



My second argument in support of the influence of the 
Holy Spirit in conversion, is founded on the promise of 
tb<" Savior in connection with his final commission to his 
apostles and succeeding ministers, as recorded in Mat- 
thew xxviii : 19, 20 : 

"And lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the 
world." 

Now, my argument is this : The phrase " I am with 
you" is expressive of the presence of a Divine agency, dis- 
tinct from all instrumentality . It does not mean the pres- 
ence of argument, or motive, or "Truth," or anything else 
belonging to mere instrumentality. It means the spiritual 
presence of the Divine Being. 

In support of this argument I will cite the following 
proofs \ 

1. Exodus xxxiii : 14, 15 : "And he said, My presence 
shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. And he 
said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us 
not up hence." Now, I ask, can any one fail to perceive 
that Moses understood by the promise, " My presence 
shall go with thee/' something distinct from, and more 
than mere instrumentality ? He evidently understood 
the promise to denote the spiritual presence of God. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 231 

2. Numbers xiv : 42 : "Go not up, for the Lord is not 
among you; that ye may not be smitten before your ene- 
mies. " Compare Deut. i : 42 : "And the Lord said unto 
me, Say unto them, Go not up, neither fight, for I am 
not among you : lest ye be smitten before your enemies." 
Now, is it not certain, that Moses understood the phrase, 
"The Lord is not among you," to denote the absence, 
not of instrumentality, but of the spiritual presence or 
agency of God? 

3. Deuteronomy xx: 4: " For the Lord your God is he 
that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies." 
It really seems a work of supererogation to comment upon 
this passage. Blindness itself can see that the spiritual 
presence and agency of God is meant. Israel was that 
day to approach into battle against their enemies, but 
they were fearful and faint-hearted. There was present 
with them all the instrumentalities of war; still they 
needed something else to fill them with courage and make 
them strong. Well, this promise of God was that some- 
thing else. God should go with them and fight for them, 
i. e., give efficiency to their arms. Then, it is evident, a 
spiritual presence and agency were meant. 

4. Deuteronomy xxxi : 6, 8 : "Be strong, and of a good 
courage, fear not, neither be afraid of them ; for the Lord 
thy God, he it is that doth go with thee, he will not fail 
thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed." 
I defy skepticism itself to disbelieve a spiritual agency is 
here intended. It can mean nothing else. 

5. Joshua i : 5 : " There shall not any man be able to 
stand before thee all the days of thy life : as I was with 
Moses, so will I be with thee : I will not fail thee, nor 
forsake thee." Compare verse 9 : " Have not I com- 
manded thee? Be strong, and of good courage, be not 
afraid, neither be thou dismayed : for the Lord thy God 



232 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

is with thee whithersoever thou goest." Nothing else 
can be intended here but a Divine presence and agency. 
6. 1 Chronicles xxviii : 20: "And David said to" Solo- 
mon his son, Be strong, and of good courage, and do it: 
fear not, nor be dismayed, for the Lord God, even my God, 
will be with thee ; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee, 
until thou hast finished all the work for the service of 
the house of the Lord." Now, from all this let me ask, 
what was Solomon authorized to expect in his arduous 
labor in building God's house ? Was it not the spiritual 
presence and agency or assistance of the God of his father 
David? And did he not depend upon that for success? 
Evidently he did. 

7. I will give you but one more passage : Isaiah : xli : 
10: "Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dis- 
mayed; for I am thy God : I will strengthen thee ; yea, I 
will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand 
of my righteousness/' This is a prophetic promise made 
to the Church. What does it denote? Evidently, the 
same supernatural agency recognized in all the preceding 
passages. 

And now, if in all these seven passages, the phrase, 
" I am with thee," means a spiritual presence and agency, 
does it not mean the same thing in the promise at the 
end of the commission? It most certainly does. The 
phrase, "I am with thee," can not mean the spiritual 
presence and agency of God in every other place where 
it occurs in the Bible, and then in the commission have 
no such meaning. Did this phrase or promise authorize 
Moses, and Israel, and Joshua, and Solomon, to expect 
a spiritual presence and agency to aid them in their un- 
dertakings, and yet authorize no such expectation in the 
minister of the Gospel as he is teaching the nations! 
Were such a presence and agency necessary to the sue- 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 233 

cess of these servants of God, and yet unnecessary to the 
success of the minister of the Gospel ? Would the Savior 
promise what is not necessary? Would he promise what 
he will not fulfill ? None dare to answer these questions 
in the affirmative. Then this promise in the commission 
is a proof, both of the presence and the necessity of a 
Divine agency distinct from the truth, in order to the 
conversion of sinners. 

There is but one way, that I can possibly conceive of, 
in which an attempt can be made to evade the force and 
conclusiveness of this argument. That is, to limit the 
promise to the . apostles and the apostolic age. But 
such a limitation would be perfectly gratuitous. It is 
suggested by nothing in the commission, or in the nature 
of the case. It can be suggested by nothing but exi- 
gency of the hypothesis, that the " truth alone con- 
verts." Hence the suggestion itself proves the hypoth- 
esis to be false : for there can be no reason given for the 
limitation of the promise, that will not be a reason for 
the limitation of the command which it accompanies. 
Every man upon whom rests the obligation of the com- 
mand, is entitled to the encouragement and support of 
the promise. 

I hold, then, that it is simply certain that if this com- 
mand is now obligatory upon us, the promise is now 
being fulfilled to us. 

I attach much importance to this argument. With my 
mind it has great force, and hence I call especial atten- 
tion to it. 

The presence of the Savior is promised to his min- 
isters, as they go and teach, and baptize, and instruct, 
the nations — to the end of time. This presence means 
more than the presence of the truth, or anything else 
belonging to instrumentality. This presence is necessary 



234 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW 01' 

to the success of those who preach the Gospel. There* 
fore, the doctrine for which we contend is true. 

§3. 

My third argument is founded on Acts xviii : 9, 10 : 

" Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night, by a vision, 
Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for lam 
with thee, and no man shall set on thee, to hurt thee; for I 
have much people in this city.'' 1 

It is clear to my mind that a spiritual presence and 
agency are here meant. It was promised to Paul, and 
was the ground of his hope of success at Corinth. The 
phrase, u I am with, thee," in this passage, is identical 
with the promise in the commission, which we have just 
considered. And, hence, all the parallel Scriptures then 
brought forward can, with equal propriety, be brought to 
bear here. I hope the reader will bear them in mind. 

We are told (verse 11) that Paul continued at Corinth 
after this Divine promise was given to him, "a year 
and six months, teaching the word of God among them.' , 
Now this evidently shows that Paul saw in the promise, 
the presence and assurance of an agency " distinct from 
and above the truth ;" for he had the presence of the 
truth before this promise was made unto him, and hence 
needed no assurance that the truth would be with him. 
Can any one suppose that if Paul, when God said " I am 
with thee," had understood nothing but the presence of 
the truth to be meant, he would have received additional 
encouragement, and in consequence protract his stay a 
year and six months at Corinth? I think not. 

But we have proof in Paul's first epistle to the Cor- 
inthians, that he regarded his success among them as 
coming from God. See chapter iii, and verses 3, 4, 5, 6, 
7 : " For ye are yet carnal : for whereas there is among 
you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, 
and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 235 

and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal? Who, 
then, is Paul ? and who is Apollos ? but ministers by 
whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man. 1 
have planted, Apollos watered : but God gave the increase. 
So, then, neither is he that planteth anything, neither he 
that watereth : but God that giveth the increase. " 

Now, here the apostle plainly states what he and 
Apollos did, and the relation which they respectively 
sustained to the faith and conversion of the Corinthians. 
And also what God did, and the relation He sustained to 
their faith and conversion. " Ye believed, as the Lord 
gave to every man" — "God gave the increase." And 
what seems to give this fact more prominence and 
strength, is this: that for this reason, or in view of this 
fact, Paul condemns their "glorying" in him or Apollos, 
and overlooking the Divine agency in the case. As Paul 
and Apollos were only instruments in their conversion, 
they were nothing and deserved nothing. But as God 
did the work, he was everything and should have all the 
glory. And as then the "increase" came, not from the 
instrumentality, but from God, so it is now. And as 
God was with Paul at Corinth, so is he with his min- 
isters now. And as he gave Paul success, so he gives 
us success. 

§4. 

My fourth argument I base upon Acts xi : 20, 21 : 

"And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, 
which when they were come to Antioch, spoke unto the Gre- 
cians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the 
Lord ivas with them : and a great number believed, and 
turned unto the Lord." 

Now, here note, we have a fact stated, viz.: a grectt 
numher of the Grecians at Antioch, believed and turned 
to the Lord. And we also have the cause of that fact 
stated, namely : 



236 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

1. Men of Cyprus and Cyrene preached to them the* 
Lord Jesus. 

2. u The hand of the Lord was with them. 11 

Then, does this passage plainly and demonstratively 
show, that the conversion of these Grecians was owing to 
two causes : the truth that was preached to them, and a 
Divine agency expressed in the words, " the hand of the 
Lord was with them." 

That the phrase, " hand of the Lord," does mean a 
Divine agency, I will now prove : 

1. Exodus xiii : 3 : " And Moses said unto the people, 
Remember this day in which ye came out from Egypt, 
out of the house of bondage : for by strength of hand 
the Lord brought you out of this place." This passage 
needs no comment. " Strength of hand" can not mean 
the instrumentalities employed in the release of the Israel- 
ites. It must mean the agency of the Spirit of God. 

2. Ezra vii : 9 : " For upon the first day of the first 
month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first 
day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem according 
to the good hand of his God upon him." Now, would 
Mr. Lard, or any one else, rob God of his glory by con- 
tending that the phrase, " the good hand of his God upon 
him," meant something else than a Divine agency? 

3. Numbers xi : 23: " And the Lord said unto Moses : 
Is the Lord's hand waxed short? Thou shalt see whether 
my word shall come to pass unto thee or not." Does not 
this passage show that the term, u the Lord's hand" is only 
another designation for the Divine agency ? This was 
to bring the Divine word to pass. 

4. Joshua iv : 23, 24 : (i For the Lord your God dried 
up the waters of Jordan from before you, until ye were 
passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, 
which he dried up from before you until ye were gone 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 237 

over, that all the people of the earth might know the hand 
of the Lord, that it is mighty : that ye might fear the Lord 
your Grod forever/' Here, " the hand of the Lord," can 
mean nothing else than a Divine agency. 

5. Judges ii : 15 : " Whithersoever they went the hand 
of the Lord was against them for evil." Comment is 
unnecessary. 

6. 1 Samuel vii : 13 : " So the Philistines were subdued, 
and they came no more into the coasts of Israel : and the 
hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days 
of Samuel." (Compare 1 Samuel v : 6.) The meaning 
of the phrase, "hand of the Lord," here, can not be in- 
nocently mistaken. The most prejudiced must see it 
means a Divine agency. 

7. 1 Samuel xiv : 15 : "But if ye will not obey the 
voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment 
of the Lord, then shall the hand of the Lord be against 
you, as it was against your fathers." This "hand of the 
Lord" can mean nothing but a Divine agency. 

8. Isaiah lix : 1 : " Behold the Lord's hand is not 
shortened that it can not save." This passage shows 
two things, namely : 

1st. That salvation is of the Lord's hand. 

2d. That the Lord's hand means a Divine agency. 

9. One more passage. Isaiah 1 : 2 : " Wherefore, when 
I came, was there no man ? when I called, was there none 
to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it can not 
redeem ? Or have I no power to deliver ?" 

Now, I maintain, that in all the foregoing nine pas- 
sages, the phrase. " The Lord's hand," is expressive of a 
Divine agency. Then it must be expressive of the same 
thing in Acts xi : 21. It can not mean a Divine agency 
in everything else, and then the very moment it is used 
with reference to the conversion of sinners drop that 



238 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

meaning ! The Grecians at Antioch, then, were convert- 
ed by the truth, and an influence distinct from and above 
the truth; and, as they were, so are all other sinners; 
therefore, our position on the agency of the Holy Spirit 
in conversion is true. 

§5. 

My fifth argument I base on Acts xiv : 27 : "And when 
they were come, and had gathered the Church together, 
they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how 
he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles." 

Now, my argument is this : Whenever the Bible says 
that God does anything with or by an individual, it means 
that he exerts a supernatural agency. 

Examples in point can be found in all parts of the 
Bible. I cite a good many which I trust the reader will 
examine, and then quote a few as specimens : Lev. viii : 
36 ; x : 10 ; xxvi : 46. Num. iv : 37-45 ; ix : 23 ; x : 13 ; 
xv : 23; xvi : 40; xxvii : 23; xxxvi : 13. Joshua xiv: 
2 ; xx : 2 ; xxi : 2-8 ; xxii : 9. Judges iii : 4. 1 Kings 
viii: 53-56. 2 Chron. xxxiii : 8 ; xxxv : 6. Neh.ix:14. 

1 give the reader the following specimens : 

Psalm lxxvii : 20 : " Thou leddest thy people like a 
flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron." 

2 Samuel iii : 18 : " Now then do it : for the Lord 
hath spoken of David, saying, By the hand of my serv- 
ant David I will save my people Israel out of the hand 
of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their ene- 
mies." 

1 Kings xiv : 18 : " According to the word of the Lord, 
which he spoke by the hand of his servant Ahijah the 
prophet." 

2 Kings xiv : 27 : " But he [the Lord] saved them by 
the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash." 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 239 

2 Chronicles x : 15 : " That the Lord might perform his 
word, which he spoke by the hand of Ahijah." 

These specimens must suffice. 

No one, it seems to me, can fail to see in each of these 
examples, proof of the presence of a supernatural agency. 
The men spoken of were merely instruments. What was 
done by them, was done by them only as instruments. 
God did it as the efficient agent. So in the passage at 
the head of this argument. Paul and Barnabas are 
spoken of as instruments. What was done among the 
Gentiles God did hy them. 

My sixth argument I base upon Galatians iv : 21-29 : 
" Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not 
hear the law ? For it is written that Abraham had two 
sons; the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. 
But he who was of the bond-woman, was born after the 
flesh ; but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which 
things are an allegory ; for these are the two covenants ; 
the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bond- 
age, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in 
Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is 
in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is 
above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is 
written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not ; break 
forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate 
hath many more children than she which hath an hus- 
band. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children 
of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh 
persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it 
is now." 

In this u allegory" we note the following points: 

1. The two wives of Abraham, Agar and Sarah, were 
typical of the two covenants — the old (Exod. xix and 
xx) and the new, (Jer. xxxi : 31-33 ; Compare Heb 



240 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

viii,) and the two organizations based upon these cov* 
enants, to wit: The Jewish and the Christian dispensa- 
tions. 

2. The two sons born of these two wives — Ishmael 
and Isaac — were typical of the members of these cove- 
nants and dispensations. 

3. As Ishmael was brought into being by ordinary 
generation, so were the members of the old covenant, the 
children of the Jewish Church, (the Jerusalem that now 
is.) They were members by virtue of being the children 
of Abraham by natural descent. And as Isaac received 
his existence by the agency of the Holy Spirit, so do the 
members of the new covenant receive theirs. As Isaac 
was born after the Spirit, so are the members of the Chris- 
tian Church, (or the Jerusalem from above.) 

Now, just as we recognize the agency or operation of 
the Holy Spirit in the birth of Isaac, so do we recognize 
his agency or operation in the new birth of every Chris- 
tian, every babe in Christ. Nothing less than this can 
be meant. The same instrumentality is recognized in 
the birth of both these sons of Abraham, but not the 
same agency. In the one case, instrumentality only 
was employed ; in the other, there is also seen a Divine 
agency. Now, bring a man into the Christian Church by 
simple instrumentality — no change but such as can be 
produced by " the unaided light and force of Divine 
truth " — and he will be born after the flesh. He will 
have the new covenant in his hand just as the Jews 
had the old. But, as the law of God must be written 
on the heart and printed on the mind, it can not be 
written by ink, but by the Spirit of the living God, 
(2 Cor. iii : 3.) 

I found my seventh and last argument upon the final 
conversion of the Jews. That the Jews are finally to be 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 241 

converted, is clearly taught in the word of God. See 
the following passages : 

1. Romans xi: 25-27: "For I would not, brethren, that 
ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (lest ye should be 
wise in your own conceits,) that blindness in part is hap- 
pened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come 
in. And so all Israel shall be saved : as it is written, 
There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall 
turn away ungodliness from Jacob : for this is my cove- 
nant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." 

Upon this passage I remark: This " blindness " 
which "happened to Israel," is judicial, and will continue 
for a specified period. See 2 Corinthians iii : 13-16 : 
" And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that 
the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the 
end of that which is abolished : but their minds were 
blinded : for until this day remaineth the same vail un- 
taken away in the reading of the Old Testament : which 
vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, 
when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Never- 
theless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be 
taken away." Now, during all this period, the Jews 
have the written word — the truth — but they have not 
that agency which will be at last employed in their con- 
version, 

2. In their conversion a Divine agency will be em- 
ployed, here called the "Deliverer." This agency is 
none other than the Spirit of God. See Isaiah lix : 20, 
21 : u And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto 
them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the 
Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith 
the Lord : My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words 
which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of 
thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of 

11 



242 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from hence- 
forth and forever." 

Again, Isaiah xxxii : 13-17: "Upon the land of my 
people shall come up thorns and briers ; yea, upon all 
the houses of joy in the joyous city : because the palaces 
shall be forsaken ; the multitude of the city shall be left; 
the forts and towers shall be for dens forever, a joy of 
wild asses, a pasture of flocks. Until the Spirit be poured 
upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful 
field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest. Then 
judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness 
remain in the fruitful field. And the work of righteous- 
ness shall be peace ; and the effects of righteousness, quiet- 
ness and assurance forever." 

Now, these two passages from Isaiah fully teach the 
agency of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of the Jews. 

Here I close. Enough has been said to settle the 
question. I feel sure that with all the impartial and can- 
did who shall examine what has been written, our side is 
triumphant. 

And now let me say to all our Churches, and brethren 
in the ministry, it becomes us to be profoundly penetra- 
ted with the doctrine of the agency of the Holy Spirit in 
conversion. Hence arises our hope of the conversion of 
that multitude which no man can number, who at last 
shall come from the East and from the West, from the 
North and from the South, and sit down with Abraham, 
and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God. When we 
cast our eyes abroad and contemplate the nations that 
now sit in darkness and the shadow of death, and send to 
them the missionary of the cross with that Gospel which 
bringeth life and immortality to light, we can look up to 
heaven and pray and hope. Knowing who it is that has 
said the Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 243 

ask him. And when we contemplate the condition — the 
blindness — of that scattered and pealed people from 
whom salvation first came to us, and who still suffer un- 
der that withering curse, imprecated by their fathers when 
they said in the hall of Pilate, His blood be upon us and 
our children, and who must yet suffer until the fullness 
of the Gentiles are come in, we yet anticipate the day 
when they will turn and look upon him whom they have 
pierced, and mourn. God will pour out his Spirit upon 
them from on high, and then the " children of Israel 
shall come, they and the children of Judah, together, 
going and weeping ; they shall go and seek the Lord 
their God, They shall ask the way to Zion, with their 
faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves 
to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be for- 
gotten. 

We can very well afford to let the Campbellites toil on, 
if they choose, in a field, which, like the mountains of 
Gilboa, receives no dew from heaven, while we hope for 
and receive the former and the latter rains. Let us see 
to it that we grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, neither 
by distrust on the one hand, nor self-sufficiency on the 
other. Let us sow our seed in the morning, and in the 
evening not withhold our hand, as we know not which 
shall prosper, this or that ; and when we see the tender 
plants of righteousness springing up and growing to ma- 
turity and yielding precious fruit, let us as with one heart 
and one mouth exclaim, " God giveth the increase." 

Earnest prayer winged with faith will pierce the skies 
and hang our weakness upon the arm of the Almighty. 
Such prayer will bring down power from on high ; for to 
it Omnipotence longs to yield. And when we feel that 
our weakness is connected with the almightiness of God 
what have we to fear? what obstacle may we not over- 



244 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW. 

come ? Let us look forward to the day when "the mul- 
titudes of camels stall come up ; the dromedaries of 
Midian and Ephah ; all they from Sheba shall come ; 
they shall bring gold and incense, and they shall show 
forth the praises of the Lord/' " Then the majesty of 
all earthly sovereigns will bow to the majesty of Jesus. 
All the spoils of earthly grandeur will be laid at hi& 
feet, and none will be exalted in that day but the Lord 
and his Messiah." The controversies of the professed 
followers of the Redeemer will be at an end. Every voice 
will be hushed but the voice of Jehovah, exclaiming in 
words of living light, "Not by might, or by power, but 
by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." Then the silence 
will break with one long and unanimous Amen. 



PART II. 



AN EXAMINATION 



LARD'S REVIEW OF JETER. 



CHAPTER VI. 

BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 



I NOW come, in my judgment, to the strongest part 
of Mr. Lard's book. He has done all that can be 
done for the Campbellite side of this question. It will 
be useless for any of his brethren to follow him. He has 
brought forward every passage of Scripture that can, by 
any ingenuity, be forced into his service, and he has 
made the best possible use of it. I feel quite sure that 
he has exhausted all his resources. When, therefore, I 
shall have overthrown his positions, and wrested from 
him his proof-texts — as I feel quite sure I shall do — his 
ingenious superstructure will fall into ruins. 

Mr. Lard, before he comes directly to the point of bap- 
tism for the remission of sins, as usual, gives us some 
preliminary matters. He devotes one chapter to the dis- 
cussion of the Identity of Regeneration, Conversion, and 
Baptism. 

1. However, he complains heavily of Mr. Jeter because 
he pronounces Mr. Campbell's views " obscure, variable, 

(247} 



248 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

and contradictory/' After a little blustering, and a few 
exclamation points, Mr. Lard coolly remarks : " Of these 
feigned contradictions we shall take no notice." Now, 
whoever turns to " Jeter's Campbellism Examined/' pp. 
191-197, and reads them carefully, will admire Mr. Lard's 
discretion. 

Mr. Lard shows here one thing very plainly, namely, 
that he is a good Campbellite. He quotes Mr. Jeter as 
saying: "I do not charge Mr. Campbell with denying 
the necessity of a moral change preparatory to baptism. 
He has written equivocally — perhaps it would be better 
to say obscurely — on the subject," etc., and then replies : 
"We regret that we can not be obliged to Mr. Jeter for 
this { admission/ Had it been made for Mr. CampbelVs 
salce } we might have been so," etc. Now, why should 
Mr. Lard feel obliged for an admission made for Mr. 
CampbelVs sake? Is Mr. Campbell any more to Mr. 
Lard than any other good man ? 

2. Mr. Lard quotes again : " Mr. Campbell has written 
equivocally — perhaps it would be better to say obscurely 
— on the necessity of a moral change before baptism ;" 
and then adds : " Candidly, we are grieved at this." Why 
should Mr. Lard be grieved ? The charge is made against 
Mr. Campbell, net against Mr. Lard. Ah, he is a mem- 
ber of the family ; and like a dutiful son he feels jealous 
of the honor of his father ! Mr. Lard taxes all his 
powers to eulogize Mr. Campbell, while he empties all 
his vials of wrath on Mr. Jeter. 

3. Mr. Jeter says, what Mr. Campbell " certainly main- 
tains is, not that we are regenerated by baptism, but that 
baptism is itself regeneration, and the only personal re- 
generation." 

Mr. Lard replies : " We presume that Mr. Jeter has, 
in this extract, come as near doing Mr. Campbell justice, 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 240 

as he has ever come doing any opponent justice ; and he 
is far from doing him justice. He certainly, however, 
does Mr. Campbell the justice to acquit him of holding 
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, for which we thank 
him sincerely and heartily." 

Does not this show that Mr. Campbell's reputation, and 
Mr. Lard's feelings, are almost, if not altogether, insep- 
arable ? 

Mr. Lard now proceeds to tell us what Mr. Campbell 
really does maintain. Let us be all attention : 

" What Mr. Campbell certainly maintains, is : 1st. That 
regeneration and the new birth are identical; 2d. That 
the new birth consists of two parts, to wit : being begot- 
ten, or quickened, and being baptized ; and 3d. That, 
therefore, baptism is not itself regeneration, ?'. e., the 
whole of it. But because baptism, as a part, an,d especi- 
ally as the last part, of regeneration, implies the other 
and preceding part, Mr. Campbell sometimes calls it re- 
generation, precisely as faith sometimes stands for the 
whole Gospel, in which, however, it is merely a single 
item. In this sense, but in no other, does he maintain 
that baptism is itself regeneration." 

It is a little amusing to hear Mr. Lard thank Mr. Jeter 
u sincerely and heartily " for acquitting Mr. Campbell 
from the charge of holding to baptismal regeneration, 
and then see him turn witness against him himself. 

I, like Mr. Jeter, had supposed, until I read Mr. Lard, 
that Mr. Campbell taught that baptism itself is regen- 
eration. And I do not even now know how else to 
understand the following passage: " Regeneration is there- 
fore the act of being born. Hence its connection always 
with water. Reader, reflect; what a jargon, what a con- 
fusion, have the mystic doctors made of this metaphorical 

expression, and this topic of regeneration ! To call the 
11* 



250 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

receiving of any spirit, or any influence, or energy, or any 
operation on the heart of man, regeneration, is an abuse 
of all speech, as well as a departure from the diction of 
the Holy Spirit, who calls nothing personal regeneration, 
except the act of immersion." — Christ Rest., pp. 206, 207. 
If this extract does not confine the meaning of the 
term regeneration to immersion, and to immersion alone, 
there is no meaning in words. But hereafter I stand 
corrected. I shall, on the authority of Mr. Lard, say 
that Mr. Campbell teaches that baptism is only a part of 
regeneration. The difference, then, between the Camp- 
bellites and us is : we hold that regeneration consists in 
"giving a holy disposition to the mind" and, therefore, 
must, in the nature of the case, precede baptism. But 
Campbellites hold that man is only begotten — quickened 
— before baptism ; and that this begetting or quickening 
is only a part of regeneration. It is regeneration begun. 
Baptism is the birth of the begotten, and must, therefore, 
take place before the person is or can be regenerated. 
Then, after all, Campbellites hold to baptismal regener- 
ation ! If a whole comprehends all its parts, and can 
not exist without them, regeneration must comprehend 
all its parts and can not exist without them. And, 
therefore, as baptism is a part of regeneration, regener- 
ation can not exist without it ! This, then, is baptismal 
regeneration. 

§2. 

As Mr. Lard has made baptism a part of regeneration, 
so has he made it a part of conversion. His words 
are : 

11 Next, in regard to the word conversion. All we have 
to say on this term shall consist in a few remarks on the 
following passages: ( Wherefore my sentence is, that ye 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 251 

trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned 
to God !' The word here rendered, ' are turned/ is the 
word which, in other places, is rendered convert, conver- 
sion, etc. It was here applied to the first Gentile con- 
verts to Christianity, and comprehended all that made 
the difference between the alien and the baptized person, 
and hence, of course, baptism itself. Since, therefore, it 
applied to the whole of a process of which baptism is a 
part, conversion and baptism must, to a certain extent 
at least, be identical/' 

Mr. Lard's mistake here is this : he stretches the 
meaning of the word conversion so as to make it com- 
prehend what was never in its signification. While I 
have no doubt that the Gentiles spoken of by James, 
(Acts xv : 19,) were baptized, I do not, like Mr. Lard, 
learn that fact from the word conversion. I infer it from 
the well-known fact that the apostles uniformly baptized 
those turned to God by their ministry. If baptism was 
nowhere enjoined, and if no mention was made of its 
administration in any case, could Mr. Lard learn it from 
the word conversion? Never. Yet he could learn all 
that the word means. 

The next passage on which Mr. Lard comments is : 
" Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins 
may be blotted out," etc. — Acts iii : 19. Upon this pas- 
sage he remarks : 

" The word conversion, then, did not, in this case, 
denote belief, since it was believers who were commanded 
to be converted. Neither did it denote repentance, since 
this is denoted by its appropriate term. What, then, did 
it denote? After belief and repentance what remains? 
Baptism only. Baptism, then, we conclude, was that part 
of the whole process of turning to God, which the word 
conversion more especially applied to ; hence, to this ex- 



252 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

tent, and in this sense, but in no other, conversion and 
baptism are identical. " 

Here Mr. Lard, as I conceive, has made several mis- 
takes : 

1. He says, conversion, in this case, could not denote 
belief, since believers were commanded to be converted. 
Now, I ask, from what part of the context did he learn 
that in Acts iii : 19, believers were commanded to be con- 
verted? Peter addressed the " people " who ran together 
unto him and John, in Solomon's porch, and in their 
blindness were disposed to give them the credit of the 
miracle of healing, which they had just witnessed, as if 
done by their own power or holiness. Were these people 
believers when Peter began to speak to them ? They 
were not. Did they become believers before he reached 
this part of his discourse ? Of this we have no evidence. 
There is not a verse in the chapter that says a word 
about their believing. We are told in the fourth verse 
of the following chapter, that " many of them who heard 
the word believed." But the historian says nothing 
about at what period or point in Peters discourse they be- 
came believers. It is evident they were not believers 
when the apostle began to preach to them. And it is 
gratuitous to infer that they had become believers before 
he uttered the words, " Repent," etc. 

2. Another mistake of Mr. Lard's, as I conceive, is 
this : That conversion can not mean repentance. Now, 
any reflecting mind will perceive that the meaning of 
the two terms, repentance and conversion, necessarily 
run into each other. Though these two terms are not 
synonymous, they imply each other. He who repents, 
turns. He who turns, repents. Yet it is not tautological 
to say, Repent and turn. The apostles preached a re- 
pentance which was toward God, a repentance, therefore; 



JETEB/S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 253 

always associated with turning. And this is, as I con- 
ceive, the import of the language of Peter. He charged 
upon them the guilt of denying the Holy and Just One, 
and desiring a murderer in his stead — of killing the 
Prince of life. Still, there was one palliation : " through 
ignorance " they did it. And now he calls upon them, 
in view of this fact, to repent and be converted, i. e., be 
turned to God. They might sincerely repeni, and yet sup- 
pose their sins unpardonable, and give themselves up to 
despair. But Peter's words give them hope. Seasons 
of refreshing from the presence of the Lord would come, 
and he would blot out their sins. Hence they should not 
only repent, but be turned to God. 

Mr. Lard here plainly makes conversion and regener- 
ation identical. And he teaches that neither can exist 
without baptism : for surely, if baptism is a part of both, 
it is essential to both. 

But are regeneration and conversion identical ? I pre- 
sume not. Each of these terms has its own meaning. 
Let us now briefly consider that meaning : 

1. Regeneration. — This term implies a former genera- 
tion. The prefix "re," implies this. The following is 
its meaning : 1st. Man was created holy. He had within 
him a clean heart and a right spirit. He possessed spir- 
itual life. 2d. But man fell, and from that moment his 
heart was impure and his spirit unholy. Henceforth he 
was dead in trespasses and in sins. 3d. Regeneration 
reproduces within him a clean heart and a right spirit, 
and makes him alive. He becomes a new creature. — ■ 
2 Cor. v : 17. He is renewed in the spirit of his mind, 
and puts on the new man, which, after God, is created in 
righteousness and true holiness. — Eph. iv : 23, 24. 

2. Conversion. — This word strictly signifies turning. 
As man has departed from God, he must return to God. 



254 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

This the word conversion expresses. But while conven 
sion is simply expressive of this, it implies all the dispos- 
ing causes, such as repentance, faith, etc., etc. Hence, 
the term is sometimes used as a general name for the 
whole. A few examples of its use will fully show this. 
The original word is sometimes translated by the word 
convert, and sometimes by the word turn. I will, there- 
fore, cite passages where both terms are employed : Matt, 
xiii : 15 : " For this people's heart is waxed gross, and 
their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they 
closed ; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, 
and hear with their ears, and should understand with 
their hearts, and should be converted, and I should heal 
them." This is a quotation from Isaiah vi : 10. The 
quotation is also to be found in Mark iv : 12 ; John xii : 
40 ; and Acts xxviii : 27. In all these passages the word 
conversion can have no allusion to baptism, for in Isaiah 
there is no such allusion. In Luke i : 16, 17, the word 
is translated turn : " And many of the children of Israel 
shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go 
before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the 
hearts of the fathers to the children/' etc. Here the 
word can not mean baptism, for it is the conversion of 
the heart. Acts xiv : 15 : " We are also men of like 
passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should 
turn from these vanities unto the living God/' Can the 
word here mean baptism ? 

I need quote no more. Let the reader consult Luke 
xvii : 4 ; Acts ix : 35 ; xi : 21 ; xxvi : 18-20 ; James v : 
19, 20; 1 Peter ii: 25. 

§3. 

I now come to that portion of Mr. Lard's book which 
treats directly on " the remission of sins." I can indorse 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 255 

with all my heart his opening remarks, and here I adopt 
them as my own : 

" The absorbing interest of the subject, and the con- 
flicting opinions which exist respecting it, should make 
us patient in the collection of such facts as seem most 
likely to lead to sound decisions concerning it, as well 
as careful in combining those facts, and just in deduc- 
ing from them no conclusion which they do not warrant. 
From the mind and from the heart every preference for 
any view of the subject, which it is not clearly the inten- 
tion of our heavenly Father we should entertain, should 
be banished completely and forever. Upon this subject, 
at least, let the sincere love of the truth direct our 
thoughts." 

It is a pity that Mr. Lard should break off from this 
train of noble remarks, and write as he has done about 
Mr. Jeter. Hear him : 

u In the discussion of this subject Mr. Jeter consumes 
some sixty-nine pages of his book. Perhaps we should 
suppose him sincere. It is not impossible he may be so. 
But, candidly, this part of his book affords no feeble evi- 
dence that the love of the truth dwells not in his heart. " 

Whether Mr. Jeter deserves this at Mr. Lard's hands 
let the reader turn to Campbellism Examined, and read 
from page 221 to page 290, and then decide. I question 
the sincerity of no man. I impugn not his motives. 
Mr. Lard has written some strange things, and I have 
freely animadverted upon them, but I have never doubted 
his sincerity. His motives I leave to that God who tries 
the heart and reins. 

Mr. Lard comes to the matter at issue between him 
and Mr. Jeter thus : 

u Mr. Jeter maintains that a persons sins are remitted 
the instant in which he becomes a penitent believer, and con- 



256 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

sequently before and without baptism. From this we dis- 
sent. We maintain that the sinner, though a believer ', it 
still required to repent and be baptized, in order to the re- 
mission of his sins, and, consequently, that they are not 
remitted before and without baptism." 

I am satisfied with the proposition here assigned to 
Mr. Jeter. I shall adopt it as*my own, and upon it join 
issue with Mr. Lard. I shall first sustain this proposi- 
tion by the word of God; and then, secondly, reply to 
Mr. Lard's arguments in support of his. 

§ 4. ARGUMENT FIRST. 

This position agrees with express words of Scripture, 
while Mr. Lard's can not be sustained but by their perver- 
sion. 

Under this argument I call the reader's attention to 
the following passages : 

1. Romans i : 16, 17 : " For I am not ashamed of the 
Gospel of Christ : for it is the power of God unto salva- 
tion to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first, and also 
to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God 
revealed from faith to faith : as it is written, The just 
shall live by faith." 

Now, without note or comment, this passage fully ac- 
cords with my position. But it can not be made to har- 
monize with Mr. Lard's, because the quotation from the 
prophet (Hab. ii : 4) with which it terminates prohibits 
it. The prophet, when he said "The just shall live 
by faith, " knew and thought nothing about baptism. 
Then if it was the intention of Paul to be understood as 
saying the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, 
not to every one that believes, simply, but only to such 
believers as are baptized, he should not have quoted the 
prophet to prove it. Can Mr. Lard prove his position by 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 257 

ibis passage from Habakkuk ? No. No more could 
Paul. My position is supported by botb the apostle and 
the prophet, but Mr. Lard's is against both. 

2. Romans iii : 21-31 : " But now the righteousness 
of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by 
the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, 
which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all 
them that believe ; for there is no difference : for all have 
sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being jus- 
tified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is 
in Christ Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propi- 
tiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his right- 
eousness for the remission of sins that are past, through 
the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this time 
his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier 
of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then ? 
It is excluded. By what law ? of works ? Nay ; but by 
the laio of faith. Therefore we conclude, that a man 
is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is 
he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the 
Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one 
God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and 
uncircumcision through faith. Do we, then, make void 
the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the 
law." 

I have emphasized those parts in this long quotation 
to which I call special attention. Upon them emphasis 
is to be laid. Do they not teach precisely what my posi- 
tion teaches ? Do they not conflict with Mr. Lard's ? 
But let me amplify a little. 

1. In this passage the apostle expressly teaches God's 
method of justification. It became him, therefore, to ex- 
press everything necessary to it; not only on God's part, 
but also on ours. And we can not suppose he has not 



258 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

done so without charging him with unfaithfulness. Yet 
who would thus charge him? But note, he has not uttered 
a syllable concerning baptism. 

2. The only qualification he names with respect to man 
is faith. " The righteousness of God is by faith of Jesus 
Christ/' It is "unto all and upon all them that believe." 
Jesus Christ is " set forth to be a propitiation through 
faith in his blood. God "justifieth circumcision by faith, 
and the uncircumcision through faith" The apostle not 
only says all this, but he says it in opposition to the idea 
that ivorks have any place in the scheme. 

3. All this accords perfectly with my position. But 
it is in direct opposition to Mr. Lard's. Yea, more ; an 
attempt to reconcile it with his position would entirely 
pervert it. According to his position, God's righteous- 
ness is by faith and baptism. Jesus Christ is set forth 
to be a propitiation through faith and baptism. And 
God justifies the circumcision by faith and baptism, and 
the uncircumcision through faith and baptism ! 

4. My position is sustained by the apostle's manner of 
meeting objections to his doctrine, while it would be im- 
possible to meet them upon Mr. Lard's position. 

The first objection is, " Where is boasting then ?" The 
Jews saw that the argument of the apostle cut up by the 
roots all their grounds of boasting. They were disposed 
to think the Jew had many advantages over the Gentile, 
and that there was much profit in circumcision. But if 
they were to be justified simply by faith, all these things 
must go for nothing. " Even so," says the apostle. All 
boasting is excluded " by the law of faith." Now it is 
clear to my mind that the principle laid down here by 
the apostle as effectually excludes baptism from the Gos- 
pel rule of justification as it does circumcision, for bap- 
tism, like circumcision, is a positive rite — a work; and if 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 259 

it would give the Jew some ground of boasting to allow 
his circumcision a place in the scheme of justification, so 
icould it, too, allow a place to his baptism. 

The second objection is : " Do we then make void 
the law through faith ?" Paul replies : "By no means." 
Instead of making void the law, " we establish the law." 
Let us inquire how this is. Law consists of -.two parts, 
the preceptive and the penal. A violation of the former 
renders one obnoxious to the latter. Well, all men have 
violated the former, and are, therefore, obnoxious to the 
latter. They are in a state of condemnation. Now, it is 
proposed to seek out a plan for their justification that 
will not make void the law. The Jew supposed that that 
plan must be a justification by works. This plan, how- 
ever, would make void the law for the following reason : 
No ivorks that the sinner could do would be equal to the 
requirements or preceptive part of the law; and so far as 
his works would fall short of this the law would be made 
void. Further ; after the law has been transgressed, the 
chain of obedience is broken, and no preceding or sub- 
sequent act of the transgressor can mend it. Nothing 
will then satisfy the law but an infliction of its penalty. 
But if the sinner is justified, he is released from the 
penalty of the law. This, then, is the effect which justi- 
fication by works would have on the law. It would make 
void its preceptive part by accepting less, in the way of 
obedience or works, at the hand of the sinner, than the 
law requires. And it would make it void by snatching 
from its penal claims one who, by transgression, had 
justly incurred them. But now justification by faith 
establishes the law because it allows the justification of 
the sinner on account of the righteousness of Christ, By 
faith in him, his righteousness becomes our own. (Com- 
pare Jeremiah xxiii: 6; Romans x: 4; Philippians iii: 9.) 



2G0 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

And because while it releases the sinner from the penalty 
of the law, it recognizes the death of Christ as the 
vicarious satisfaction. (See Galatians iii : 13, 14.) The 
sinner, then, is not required to work in order to justifi- 
cation, but to believe. 

The third passage to which I would direct the read- 
er's attention is Romans iv : 1-16: "What shall we 
then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the 
flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by 
works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. 
For what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, 
and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now 
to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of 
grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but 
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is 
counted for righteousness. Even as David also describ- 
eth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth 
righteousness without works, saying : Blessed are they 
whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, 
or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith 
was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was 
it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in 
uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in uncircum- 
cision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being 
uncireumcised ; that he might be the father of all them 
that believe, though they be not circumcised, that right- 
eousness might be imputed unto them also ; and the 
father of circumcision to them who are not of the cir- 
cumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that 
faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet 
uncireumcised. For the promise that he should be the 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 261 

heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, 
through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made 
void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the 
law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no 
transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be 
by grace ; to the end the promise might be sure to all the 
seed : not to that only which is of the law, but to that 
also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father 
of us all." 

This long quotation is a continuation of the foregoing, 
and like it, strictly accords with my position, while it 
can not be reconciled with Mr. Lard's. To reconcile it 
with Mr. Lard's, one must insert baptism after faith in 
every instance of its occurrence. But to do this would 
spoil the apostle s argument. The truth of this remark 
can be tested by running the eye over the entire passage, 
beginning at Romans iii: 21, and continuing to Romans 
iv: 16. 

At the beginning of this quotation Paul meets a 
third objection to the doctrine of justification by faith, 
to wit: "What shall we then say that Abraham, our 
father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found ?" He was 
in the estimation of the Jews a most exalted character, 
and they supposed that by virtue of his works he had 
obtained justification, but they saw that Paul's teaching 
contradicted this. Paul admits it, and then refutes their 
notion by two arguments. 

1. u If Abraham were justified by works he hath where- 
of to glory, but not before God." But this would be 
contrary to God's plan. It excludes boasting or glorying, 
and therefore excludes works. (See the Greek.) In 
God's presence every mouth is stopped and all the world. 
is guilty before him. — Rom. iii: 19. And it is written: 



262 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

" He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord." — 1 Cor. i; 
31. (Compare Jeremiah ix : 23, 24; and 2 Corinthians 
x: 17.) 

2. It would be contrary to the teachings of David, for 
he describes the blessedness of the man to whom the 
Lord imputes righteousness without works when he says : 
" Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose 
sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the 
Lord imputeth not iniquity." — Psalm xxxii : 1, 2. All 
this shows that faith, without any act of Abraham being 
associated with it as a cause, was reckoned or imputed to 
him for righteousness. 

Let it be noted particularly here, that Paul uses the 
term righteousness, which he says is imputed to the be- 
liever, in such a sense as to include forgiveness of sins. This 
is proved by his quotation from David : Psalm xxxii : 
1,2: " David describeth the blessedness of the man to 
whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, say- 
ing, ' Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, 1 " etc. 
Now, as David describes here the blessedness of Abraham 
as well as of every other believer, Abraham's iniquities 
were forgiven on account of his faith, and not on account 
of any work he had done. 

3. Paul now goes on to mention one act of Abraham, 
namely, his circumcision, and shows that it could have 
had no place among the causes of his justification, be- 
cause his faith was reckoned to him for righteousness 
while he was in uncircumcision. He mentions circum- 
cision, because, upon it the Jews were wont to lay the 
greatest stress. But Mr. Lard, or some other Campbellite, 
may object and say : " The apostle James tells us, ' Abra- 
ham was justified by works when he offered up Isaac 
upon the altar.'" — James ii: 21. I would reply, the justi- 
fication of which James speaks took place forty-one year* 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 263 

after that of which Paul speaks ; they are therefore not 
identical. Paul speaks of Abraham's justification as an 
acquittal from guilt, as therefore the justification of a 
sinner. James speaks of Abraham's justification as a 
sincere "friend of God." His justification, then, is an 
acquittal from the charge of hypocrisy and insincerity. He 
showed his faith by his works. For forty-one years had 
he been a believer and a friend of God. For forty-one 
years had he enjoyed the blessedness of the man to whom 
the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, but he 
had given no particular demonstration of the fact. But 
now God tries him — he puts his fidelity to the test. His 
son of promise, of prayer, and of hope, is demanded as a 
burnt-offering : but he falters not. He comes forth from 
the trial as gold ; and God justifies him in his profession : 
11 Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast 
not withheld thy son, thine only son from me/' — Gen. 
xxii : 12. From the foregoing any one can see that the 
teaching of James does not at all conflict with the teach- 
ing of Paul. They are speaking of two distinct events 
in the life of Abraham, and of two distinct kinds of justi- 
fication. Paul's is the justification of a believing peni- 
tent sinner. James's is the justification of a faithful 
friend and servant of God. 

Paul next goes on to show that, as Abraham was justi- 
fied by faith without works, in the same way are all 
believers justified. " Now it was not written for his sake 
alone, that it [faith] was imputed to him ; but for us also, 
to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him who 
raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." — Rom. iv: 23, 
24. And, therefore, just as none of Abraham's works 
were associated with his faith as a cause of his justifica- 
tion, so none of our works are to be associated with ours 
as a cause of our justification. Paul finally gives us the 



264 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

reason why justification is of faith : "Therefore it is of 
faith that it might be by grace, to the end that the prom- 
ise might be sure to all the seed.'' 1 — V. 16. 

Now, it is plain from this remark of the apostle's, 
1st. That if works were associated with faith as a cause 
of justification it would not be by grace ; for grace and 
works can never coalesce : " And if by grace, then it is no 
more of works : otherwise grace is no more grace." — Rom. 
xi : 6. 2d. The promise of justification would not be sure 
to all the seed. If any work were enjoined as a condi- 
tion of justification, there would be some believers out of 
whose power that work would be, and to these the prom- 
ise would not be sure. For example : if baptism, as Mr. 
Lard contends, were made a condition of justification, 
would there not be found many believers who could not 
be baptized ? Then, of course, to these the promise would 
not be sure. 

4. The next passage to which I invite attention is this : 
" We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the 
Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works 
of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have 
believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the 
faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by 
the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." — Gal. 
ii: 15, 16. 

This passage, like all the preceding, perfectly harmo- 
nizes with my position, while it is incongruous with Mr. 
Lard's. 

Note, these words are uttered by the apostle in justifi- 
cation of his withstanding Peter to his face on account 
of his dissimulation in withdrawing from the Gentiles 
after having eaten with them. He, and Peter, and the 
other Jewish Christians, knew what was and what was 
not necessary to justification. None of their Jewish ob- 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 265 

servances was necessary. But faith in Christ was nec- 
essary. Consequently they had believed in Christ, that 
they might be justified by the faith of Christ. 

Note, again, that Paul is not only showing why he 
withstood Peter, but also what is essential to justifica- 
tion with respect to both Jew and Gentile. And does 
he not mention all that is essential? According to my 
position, he does; but according to Mr. Lard's he does 
not. If Mr. Lard's position be correct, Paul ought to 
have said : " We, who are Jews by nature, and not sin- 
ners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified 
by the works of the law, but by the faith [and baptism] 
of Jesus Christ, even we have believed [and been bap- 
tized] in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the 
faith [and baptism] of Christ, and not by the works of 
the law!" 

Reader, does not the introduction of Campbellism spoil 
and pervert the text? 

5. The fifth passage to which I call attention, is in 
Ephesians ii : 8-10 : " For by grace are ye saved through 
faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God : 
not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are 
his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good 
works, which God hath before ordained that we should 
walk in them." 

I claim that this passage also, without note or com- 
ment, sustains my position. But it must be materially 
changed to sustain Mr. Lard's — thus : " For by grace are 
ye saved through faith," [and baptism,] etc. Mr. Lard's 
position is incompatible with this text. 1st. It is incom- 
patible with the phrase, " and that not of yourselves." 
This phrase must allude to all that goes before, " for 
by grace are ye saved through faith." The grace, the 
salvation, the faith — all the affair of salvation — are not 
12 



266 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

of ourselves. But this can not be said of baptism. 
2d. It is incompatible with the phrase, " it is the gift of 
God." While the former phrase tells us the whole affair 
of salvation is not of ourselves, the latter tells us it is 
the gift of God: But baptism can not, with any propri- 
ety, be thus spoken of. 3d. It is incompatible with the 
phrase, " riot of works, lest any man should boast." Bap- 
tism must be included in the term "works." It can not 
be included in the term " grace:" it can not be included 
in the term " saved ;" it can not be included in the term 
"faith;" it can not be included in that which is not of 
ourselves ; it can not be included in that which is the 
•'gift of God/' 4th. The final verse, "For we are his 
workmanship," etc., shows that a performance of duty, 
or walking in good works, which is expressive, certainly, 
of obedience to all the commands of God, is an effect of 
this salvation by grace through faith. Then it can not 
be a cause. Now, as baptism is included in this effect, it 
can not be taken out of it and made a cause. But Mr. 
Lard's position makes baptism a cause and not an effect 
of salvation ; therefore it is false. If Mr. Lard's position 
is true, the sinner yet unsaved, yet unborn, (for according 
to Mr. Lard he is only begotten before baptism,) yet in 
his sins, yet condemned, is to perform an act of obedi- 
ence which shall eventuate in his salvation ! 

6. My sixth passage is in Acts x : 43 : " To him give 
all the prophets witness, that through his name, whoso- 
ever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins/' 

This passage is, of itself, sufficient to sustain my posi- 
tion and to refute Mr. Lard's. 

It is not only affirmed here by Peter, that whosoever 
believes in Jesus Christ shall receive remission of sins, but 
it is the united testimony of all the prophets. Now sup- 
pose the affirmation of Peter had been, that faith in Jesus 



Jeter's oampbellism exposed. 26? 

Christ, without baptism, was insufficient to obtain remis- 
sion of sins, could he have claimed all the prophets as 
witnesses? No. Never since the world began has a 
single prophet testified that baptism is as necessary as 
faith to remission. It remained for Campbellism to make 
this assertion. We shall notice the testimony of the 
prophets on this point by and by. 

7. The seventh passage I would have the reader con- 
sider, is in John iii: 14, 15 : "And as Moses lifted up the 
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man 
be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have eternal life/ 7 Now, just as my position 
affirms, so the Savior here affirms — that every believer in 
Jesus shall have eternal life. Faith in Jesus is the only 
condition recognized. Mr. Lard's position affirms to the 
contrary. It will thrust in baptism as a condition. But 
this the passage will not allow. The analogy here insti- 
tuted prohibits it. The analogy is as follows : 1st. As 
the Jew was affected by the poison of the fiery serpent 
which had bitten him, so is the sinner affected by sin. 
2d. As the serpent raised in the midst of the Jewish camp 
by Moses was an effectual remedy for the Jew, so is 
Jesus Christ lifted up an effectual remedy for the sin- 
ner. 3d. And as the Jew was cured by looking at this 
serpent, so is the sinner cured by believing in Jesus. 
And now, as no overt act intervened between the looking; 
of the Jew and his healing, so no overt act intervenes 
between the faith of the sinner and his salvation. Reader, 
do you not now see that to thrust in baptism between the 
sinner's faith and salvation, is to spoil this analogy? 

Here, now, are seven passages of Scripture, which are 
not only confirmatory of my position, but incompatible 
with Mr. Lard's. No ingenuity can reconcile them. I 
will, therefore, leave it with the reader to say which they 



268 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

prove to be the true position, and pass to my second 
argument. 

§ 5. — ARGUMENT SECOND. 

My position affirms precisely what so many passages of 
Scripture affirm, as to show that it agrees ivith the general 
tenor of Scripture, but Mr. Lard's can not be reconciled 
with these passages loithout adding to them ; therefore, my 
position is true and his is false. 

Now, reader, go with me, and we will range the entire 
New Testament, and see whether this argument is true. 
I will number the passages so that, at the end, we can 
know at a glance how many passages have been cited. 

1. John iii : 16: " For God so loved the world, that 
he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." Now, 
this passage affirms precisely what my position affirms, 
but to make it agree with Mr. Lard's you must add to it; 
you must thrust in " baptism " after "believeth/' Unless 
you do this, according to Mr. Lard's position, it affirms 
falsely. 

2. John iii : 18 : " He that believeth on the Son is 
not condemned." This is precisely what my position 
affirms. But Mr. Lard's affirms that the believer contin- 
ues in a state of condemnation until baptized ! So, you 
see, to reconcile this passage to Mr. Lard's position, you 
must add to it. You must thrust in " baptism" between 
"believeth" and "not condemned." 

3. John iii : 36 : " He that believeth on the Son 
hath everlasting life." So affirms my position. But 
Mr. Lard's does not so affirm. It contradicts the text 
until you thrust in baptism after believeth. 

4. John v : 24 : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent 



JETER S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 2*69 

me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into con- 
demnation ; but is passed from death unto life." My 
position responds "Amen" " Not so/' says Mr. Lard's; 
" there is no such thing as freedom from condemnation, 
and the possession of eternal life to the believer, unless 
he is baptized." Thus, reader, you see we must add to 
the text by inserting " baptism" after "believetk" or Mr. 
Lard's position will be forever at war with the text. 

5. John vi: 40: "And this is the will of him that 
sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth 
on him, may have everlasting life : and I will raise him 
up at the last day." "Amen," again responds my posi- 
tion, but Mr. Lard's frowningly says : " That text is not 
true unless baptism be added. The Father's will is that 
the believer be baptized, and then, and not till then, he 
shall have everlasting life, and claim the promise of being 
raised up at the last day." 

6. John vi : 47: "Verily, verily, I say unto you,- 
He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." "Amen," 
my position responds w T ith trebbled emphasis, but a 
darker frown gathers on the face of Mr. Lard's, and it 
mutters out: " The believer has no such thing unless he 
has been baptized." Reader, shall we accommodate Mr. 
Lard's position by adding to the text? I can not do it, 
for these are the words of the Master, and the wise man 
says : "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, 
and thou be found a liar." — Prov. xxx : 6. Compare Deu- 
teronomy iv : 2 ; xii : 32, and Revelation xxii : 18. 

7. John xx : 31: "But these are written, that ye 
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; 
and that believing ye might have life through his name." 
My position is satisfied with this text just as it is, but 
methinks Mr. Lard's has grown angry, and I hear it say : 
" You are quoting texts that were spoken before baptism 



270 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

was instituted. Give me a text, spoken or written, after 
the Pentecost." Very well. I will then go beyond 
Pentecost. But I must enter here my denial that the 
passages quoted were spoken before baptism was insti- 
tuted, but I shall not now argue the point, as it will come 
up again after a while. 

Let us now go to the other side of Pentecost. 

8. Acts xiii : 38, 39: " Be it known unto you there- 
fore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached 
unto you the forgiveness of sins ; and by him all that 
believe are justified from all things, from which ye could 
not be justified by the law of Moses." "Well, my position 
is confirmed by this text. It affirms the same thing. 
But Mr. Lard's frowns again, and will not have the text 
just as it is. To make it suit, you must make it read: 
" By him all that believe, and are baptized, are justified 
from all things," etc. 

9. Acts xiii: 48: "And as many as were ordained to 
eternal life, believed" "Amen," says my position. But 
Mr. Lard's says: "I don't believe a word of it, unless 
you will let me add, and were baptized" 

10. Romans v: 1, 2: "Therefore being justified by 
faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus 
Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this 
grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in the hope of the 
glory of God." "Amen," again responds my position. 
But what says Mr. Lard? "We are justified by faith 
and baptism, and we can have no access into this grace 
until we are baptized /" 

11. 1 Corinthians i: 21 : " It hath pleased God by the 
foolishness of preaching to save them that believe' 1 My 
position asserts the same ; but what says Mr. Lard's ? 
"It hath pleased God by the foolishness of preaching 
to save them that believe and are baptized" 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 271 

12. Galatians iii : 8: "And the Scripture, foresee* 
ing that God would justify the heathen through faith, 
preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In 
thee shall all nations be blessed." "I agree with that," 
says my position; but what says Mr. Lard's? "The 
Scripture foresaw no such thing. God will justify the 
heathen through faith and baptism." 

13. Galatians iii: 9: "So then they which be of faith 
are blessed with faithful Abraham." My position agrees 
with that; but what says Mr. Lard's? It mutters out: 
" They are blessed with faithful Abraham, provided they 
are baptized /" 

14. Galatians iii : 26 : " For ye are all the children 
of God by faith in Jesus Christ." " Good," says my 
position ; but Mr. Lard's mutters out: "We are all the 
children of God by faith and baptism." 

15. Philippians iii : 9 : " And be found in him, not 
having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but 
that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteous- 
ness which is of God by faith." " That is the kind of 
righteousness which every believing sinner has," says my 
position ; but Mr. Lard's responds : " There is no such 
righteousness. The righteousness of God is by faith and 
baptism" 

16. Romans x : 4 : " For Christ is the end of the law 
for righteousness to every one that believeth." " That is 
just what I affirm," says my position ; but Mr. Lard's 
responds: "I affirm no such thing. I affirm that Christ 
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who 
believes and is baptized" 

17. Eomans x: 8, 9 : "The word of faith, which we 
preach : That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the 
Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath 
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." " I 



272 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OP 

agree with that," says my position ; but Mr. Lard's re- 
sponds : " I say, a sinner may confess with his mouth as 
loudly as he pleases, and believe with his heart until 
doomsday, but unless he is baptized he has no promise 
of salvation." 

18. Romans x: 11 : " For the Scripture saith, Whoso- 
ever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." "I say 
so, too," says my position ; but Mr. Lard's responds : 
"I don't care what the Scripture says. I say, he will be 
ashamed unless he is baptized" 

Here, reader, I have given you eighteen passages which 
accord strictly with my position, but do not with Mr. 
Lard's. Do they not, then, sustain my second argu- 
ment? I feel quite sure they do, and shall, therefore, 
without further remark, pass to my third argument. 

§ 6. — ARGUMENT THIRD. 

During our Savior s personal ministry sins ivere remitted 
without baptism, though baptism icas then being adminis- 
tered to all such as became his disciples; therefore, the Savior 
himself has shown that remission of sins is not suspended 
on baptism. 

All that is necessary for me to do is to demonstrate 
the several statements here made. 

1. During our Savior's personal ministry sins were re- 
mitted without baptism. In support of this statement I 
offer the following proofs : 

1st. Mark ii : 5 : " When Jesus saw their faith, he said 
unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." 
There can be no doubt that Jesus forgave this palsied 
man's sins. And there can be no doubt that he forgave 
them without baptism. He did not, however, forgive 
them without faith. This passage, then, yields all its 
support in favor of my position. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 273 

2d. Luke vii : 47, 48, 50 : " Wherefore, I say unto 
thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven ; for she 
loved much. And he said unto her, Thy sins are for- 
given. And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved 
thee ; go in peace." A clearer testimony in favor of my 
position, and against Mr. Lard's, than this passage affords, 
could not be given. This woman's sins are forgiven — 
not without faith, but without baptism. This woman 
believed, and was pardoned, but not baptized. 

3d. Luke xviii : 14 : "I tell you this man went down 
to his house justified rather than the other." The phrase, 
" rather than the other," means that this man was justi- 
fied while the other was not. Justification includes par- 
don. This man was, therefore, pardoned. He was par- 
doned not without faith, but without baptism. That he 
had faith we know from his prayer. He called upon God. 
But " how can we call upon him in whom we have not 
believed?" And his faith was a penitential faith. But 
he was not baptized. 

Here, now, I have furnished the reader with three in- 
disputable examples of pardon without baptism. Well, 
11 out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every 
word be established." I pass to the second statement: 

2. u Baptism -was then being administered to all such as 
became the Savior s disciples." 

In proof of this I refer first to John iii : 22: " After 
these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land 
of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized." 
After these things? After what things? Evidently 
after his conversation with Nicodemus, as recorded in the 
preceding part of the chapter. Then, be it remembered 
after he had uttered the remarkable words : " Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter 
the kingdom o^ God;" which words, Mr. Lard tells us, 
12* 



274 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

makes baptism a part of the new birth ! and a condition 
of pardon ! ! But note, not after the examples of pardon 
without baptism, which I have already presented from 
Mark and Luke. 

A second proof I deduce from John iv : 1, 2 : " When, 
therefore, the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard 
that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 
(though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 
he left Judea," etc. These two passages show that in 
the beginning of our Savior's personal ministry, by his 
authority disciples were made and baptized. They show 
us how Jesus began his ministry. And now, while we 
have proof, that in the commencement of our Savior's 
ministry, he made and baptized disciples, and have no 
proof that baptism was ever discontinued, we are bound 
to conclude that baptism was being administered during 
his personal ministry. There can be no reason given for 
the administration of the rite, in the commencement, that 
would not be a reason for its continuance to the end. It 
is a just inference that as the Savior began so would ho 
finish his ministry. He began by baptizing disciples, 
and, therefore, so he finished. 

I can imagine but two objections that any one can 
possibly urge against this conclusion : 

1. It may be objected that as these two passages are 
the only ones which speak of the administration of bap- 
tism during our Savior's ministry — as the New Testa- 
ment is ever after silent — the presumption is, Jesus never 
again baptized. I answer, silence proves nothing. A 
witness never yet proved anything by saying nothing. 
Especially is subsequent silence no proof against what 
has been already established. The witness in this case 
has spoken once, yea, twice, in proof of the above state- 
ment, and until he speaks again he is on my side. 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 275 

If subsequent silence is proof of a discontinuance of the 
rite of baptism, then was baptism discontinued at Jeru- 
salem after the day of Pentecost: for no sacred historian 
mentions that baptism was ever administered there after 
that day. And so of Samaria and Cesarea. The Samari- 
tans converted by Philip were baptized, (Acts viii : 12,) 
but whether any others were ever baptized there, the 
sacred historian saith not. Cornelius, and his friends 
and neighbors, who received the gift of "the Holy Spirit 
while Peter was preaching to them, were commanded to 
be baptized ; but whether any others were afterward, the 
historian saith not. And so of many other places. 

2. It may be objected that if Jesus authorized his dis- 
ciples to baptize during his personal ministry, there was 
no need of the commission as recorded by Matthew and 
Mark. I answer there was need of this commission, be- 
cause without it neither the Gospel nor its ordinances 
would ever have been extended to the Gentiles. Our 
Savior's first commission to his apostles restricted them 
to " the lost sheep of the house of Israel." — See Matt, x : 
5, 6. Neither to the Samaritans or to the Gentiles were 
they to preach. And now, as the Savior had placed 
around them this restriction, it was needful that he 
should remove it. This he has done in the commission. 
After his ascension they were to " teach all nations" 
" preach the Gospel to every creature" and baptize such 
of them as believed. The giving of this commission, 
then, affards no objection to the view I have given : 
During our Savior's personal ministry baptism was ad- 
ministered. 

3. From these two considerations, then, I draw the 
conclusion that the Savior himself has shown that remis* 
sion of sins is not suspended on baptism. 

It can not be presumed that our blessed Lord would 



276 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

enact a law of pardon and then violate it himself. It 
can not be presumed that he would tell Nicodemus that 
a man must be born of water and of the Spirit — meaning 
by born of water, that he must be baptized — or he could 
not enter the kingdom or could not be pardoned : and 
then again and again pardon sins without baptism. This 
would be to contemn his own law. And how could he 
expect the apostles to abide by the law, when he him- 
self was, in their presence, so frequently violating it? 

I now consider my third argument sustained. Its sev- 
eral parts have been demonstrated. And it is of itself 
sufficient to sustain my position. I pass to my fourth 
argument. 

§ 7. — ARGUMENT FOURTH. 

My position is in strict accordance with the special com- 
mission given to the apostle Paul by the Savior, while Mr, 
Lard's is discordant icith it ; therefore^ my position is true 
and Mr. Lard's false. 

This special commission is recorded in Acts xxvi : 16- 
18 : " But rise, and stand upon thy feet : for I have 
appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a min- 
ister and a witness both of these things which thou hast 
seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto 
thee ; delivering thee from the people, and from the 
Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, 
and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the 
power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness 
of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified 
by faith that is in me." 

1. We notice here, 1st. The instrumentality Paul was 
to employ ; 2d. The benefits the Gentiles were to receive ; 
3d. The medium through which they were to receive 
them. The instrumentality was evidently the preaching 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 277 

of the Gospel, comprehended in his being a minister and 
a witness of the things he had seen and would yet see. 
Hence the apostle has in all his epistles laid great stress 
on this. " It pleased God by the foolishness of preach- 
ing to save them that believe." — 1 Cor. i: 21. "We 
preach Christ crucified ; * * * unto them which 
are called * * * the power of God, and the wisdom 
of God." — V. 23, 24. "For the preaching of the cross 
is j * * * unto us which are saved, it is the power 
of God/' — V. 18. " I am not ashamed of the Gospel of 
Christ : for it is the power of God unto salvation to every 
one that believeth." — Rom. i : 16. 

The benefits to be conferred are : 1st. Spiritual enlight- 
enment — open their eyes ; 2d. Conversion — turn them 
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto 
God; 3d. Forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among 
the saved. But now note especially that the medium 
through which all this was to come, is faith — " By faith 
that is in me." And now we can see the adaptation of 
the means to the medium : " For whosoever shall call 
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then 
shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? 
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not 
heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher f" — ■ 
Rom. x : 13, 14. As these benefits were to be received 
by faith, the instrumentalities necessary to faith had to 
be employed. Hence Christ sent Paul to preach. (1 Cor. 
i : 17.) Now, all this accords strictly with my position. 
But does it accord with Mr. Lard's ? It does not. It 
lacks one indispensable item — baptism. Mr. Lard's 
position would admit that the Gentiles to whom Paul 
was sent might have their eyes opened, and might 
be turned from darkness unto light without baptism ; 
but there they must stop. In the kingdom of Satan 



278 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

and in their sins they must remain until they are bap- 
tized ! 

Did Paul so understand the matter? Then tell me 
how could he thank God that he had baptized so few 
among the Corinthians? and how could he say that 
Christ sent him not to baptize? (1 Cor. i: 17.) Paul 
never entertained any such views as those embraced in 
Mr. Lard's position. 

§ 8. — ARGUMENT FIFTH. 

My position agrees icith the teaching of Paul in Romans, 
tenth chapter, and first to tenth verses, inclusive: but Mr. 
Lard's is incompatible with it; therefore mine is true and 
his is false. 

The passage of Scripture here referred to is lengthy, 
still I will transcribe it ; for it is worthy of being written 
in letters of gold : 

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for 
Israel is, that they might be saved. For 1 bear them 
record that they have a zeal of God, but not accord- 
ing to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God's 
righteousness, and going about to establish their own 
righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the 
righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law 
for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses 
describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that 
the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this 
wise, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into 
heaven ? (that is, to bring Christ down from above :) or. 
Who shall descend into the deep ? (that is, to bring up 
Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The 
word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart: 
that is, the word of faith which we preach : That if thou 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 279 

shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 
believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the 
dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart, man be- 
lieveth unto righteousness ; and with the mouth, confes- 
sion is made unto salvation.'' 

Here the apostle contrasts the Jewish and the Chris- 
tian plans of salvation, in order to point out the differ- 
ence between them, and to show the futility of the one 
and the efficiency of the other. The Jewish plan is one 
of law. The Christian plan is one of faith. The Jew 
expects to be saved by his own righteousness. The Chris- 
tian by faith in Jesus Christ. The Jewish plan says. Do 
and be saved. The Christian says, Believe and be saved. 

The apostle then gives a plain description of the faith 
which saves. It is not a simple belief in a Messiah who 
has not yet come into the world. No, it recognizes the 
Lord Jesus as having already come, and died and risen 
again. Hence John says : " Every spirit that confesses 
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God : and 
every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come 
in the flesh, is not of God/' — 1 John iv : 2, 3. And 
Paul tells us, " If Christ be not risen our faith is vain.'' 
— 1 Cor. xv : 14. Therefore we are to " confess with our 
mouths the Lord Jesus, and believe in our hearts that 
God hath raised him from the dead!' And, finally, the 
word of faith which he preached, affirmed of all who did 
thus confess and believe, that they should be saved. 
Now, this is true, every word of it true, according to my 
position. But it is not true according to Mr. Lard's; for 
one essential item is still wanting. The word which it 
preaches is : i: If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the 
Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath 
raised him from the dead, [and be baptized,"] thou shalt be 
saved." According to it, without baptism all that goes 



280 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

before is of no avail. Mr. Lard's plan of salvation ift 
neither Jewish nor Christian. It is a mixture of both. 
The Jew says, " Do and live." The Christian says, "Be- 
lieve and live." But Mr. Lard says, " Believe and do and 
live." His plan begins in the spirit but ends in the flesh. 
But it may be asked, if baptism can not be implied by 
the apostle as being also necessary to salvation ? I an- 
swer, most surely not, for this plain reason : the apostle 
proves his assertion by the prophets Isaiah and Joel. 
The former says : " Whosoever believeth on him shall not 
be ashamed." And the latter says: "Whosoever shall 
call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." But they 
say not one word about baptism. Now, had Paul intended 
to teach what Mr. Lard's position teaches, he could not 
have called on Isaiah and Joel as witnesses. How in- 
congruous would it appear were we to read : " Though 
you may confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and 
believe in your heart that God hath raised him from the 
dead, you can not be saved unless you are baptized : for 
the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall 
not be ashamed," etc. ! ! ! 



§ 9. — ARGUMENT SIXTH. 

Baptism is an act of obedience to the command of Jesus 
Christ, hence it can not be acceptably performed by one 
who does not love him : but no lover of Jesus Christ is still 
in his sins : hence, if baptism is delayed until the sinner 
loves Jesus Christ, it is delayed until he is pardoned ; but 
if the sinner is baptized before he loves Jesus Christ, the act 
itself is sinful, and can be of no avail. 

1. Baptism is an act of obedience to the command :f 
Jesus Christ. This, I presume, no one will dispute. He 
is the author of the command, and he has issued it in his 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 281 

own name. " All power [or authority] is given unto me 
in heaven and in earth : go ye, therefore/' etc. 

2. It can not be acceptably performed by one wlio does 
not love him. Will this be disputed? I think not. But 
lest it should be, I submit the following proofs : " He 
that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy 
of me : and he that loveth son or daughter more than 
me, is not worthy of me/' — Matt, x: 37. (Compare Luke 
xiv : 26.) The meaning of the Savior here, plainly is, 
that we can not be his disciples or do anything accepta- 
ble to him unless we love him supremely. 

3. But no lover of Jesus Christ is still in his sins. Is 
this true, or is it false ? If it is true, the issue between 
Mr. Lard and me is settled in my favor forever. Well, 
let us to the law and to the testimony: 

1st. Love is evidence of conversion, because uncon- 
verted men do not love. " The carnal mind is enmity 
against God." — Rom. viii : 7. "I know you/' said Jesus 
to the Jews, " that ye have not the love of God in 
you," — John v: 42. Hence, the love of God is shed 
abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. — Horn, v: 5. 
John tells us love is of God. — 1 John iv : 7. 

2d. Love is an evidence of pardon. See Luke vii : 
41-43: "There was a certain creditor, who had two 
debtors : the one owed him five hundred pence, and the 
other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he 
frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of 
them will love him most? Simon answered and said, 
I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he 
said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged." Here love is 
shown to be the effect of pardon. Hence, Jesus adds in 
the 47th verse: " Wherefore, I say unto thee, her sins, 
which are many, are forgiven ; for she loved much." 
Here love is shown to be the proof of pardon. 



282 AN EXAMINATION OP LARD'S REVIEW OF 

3d. It can not, I think, be denied that all who havi 
passed from death unto life are pardoned; therefore what- 
ever proves that one has passed from death unto life, 
proves that he is pardoned. Well, love proves that one 
has passed from death unto life. " We know," says 
John, " that we have passed from death unto life, because 
we love the brethren." — 1 John iii : 14. 

4. The apostle John makes the entire question of our 
gracious state turn upon this one fact, that we love. Let 
me quote him in full, giving what he says about those 
who do not, as well as about those who do. I will place 
what he says in juxtaposition, that we may the better 
compare : 

THOSE WI70 DO LOVE. THOSE WHO DO XOT LOVE. 

"He that loveth his brother "He that saith he is in the 

abideth in the light, and there is light, and hateth his brother, is 

none occasion of stumbling in in darkness even until now." — 1 

him." — 1 John ii : 10. John ii : 9. 

" "We know that we have passed " He that loveth not his broth- 

from death unto life, because we er, abideth in death." — 1 John 

love the brethren." — 1 John iii: iii: 14. 

14. " He that loveth not, knoweth 

"Beloved, let us love one an- not God; for God is love." — 1 

other : for love is of God ; and John iv : 8. 

every one that loveth is born of " If a man say, I love God, and 

God, and knoweth God." — 1 John hateth his brother, he is a liar, 

iv : 7. For he that loveth not his broth- 

"If we love one another, God er, whom he hath seen, how can 

dwelleth in us, and his love is he love God, whom he hath not 

perfected in us." — 1 John iv : 12. seen?" — 1 John iv : 20. 

" Every one that loveth him 
that begat, loveth him also that 
is begotten of him." — Uohnv: 1. 

Now, reader, look first on this side, and secondly, on 
that, and then tell me, can a man be on this side and 
be still in his sins ? Can he be on that; and be a suita- 
ble subject for baptism ? Mr. Lard must get his subject 



jeter's campbelllsm exposed. 283 

of baptism out of the one or of the other of these classes. 
Well, if he takes them from among those who love, does 
lie take them still in their sins? Most surely not. Well, 
if he takes them from among those who do not love, can 
their baptism do them any good? This brings us to 
consider — 

5. If the sinner is baptized before he loves Jesus Christ, 
the act itself is sinful, and can be of no avail. 

Any act of obedience performed without love is 
heartless, therefore sinful, because God requires the heart. 
Surely, this needs only to be stated to be believed. But 
let the Bible speak. Isaiah xxix : 13, 14 : " Wherefore 
the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near to me 
with their mouths, and with their lips do honor me, but 
have removed their heart far from me, and their fear 
toward me is taught by the precept of men : therefore, 
will I proceed to do a marvelous work/' etc. Again, 
Ezekiel xxxiii : 31 : " They come unto thee as the peo- 
ple cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and 
they hear thy words, but they will not do them : for with 
their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth 
after their covetousness." Once more, Matthew xv : 8: 
u This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth 
and honoreth me with their lips ; but their heart is far 
from me." 

All these passages fully show that a heartless service 
is worse than no service. It is hypocrisy, than which 
nothing is more abominable to God. 

In all the service which God requires of his creatures, 
the stress is laid upon the heart. A few passages of 
Scripture will show this. Deuteronomy x : 12: "And now. 
Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but 
to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and 
to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all tlnj 



284 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

heart and with all thy soul." Again, Deuteronomy xi , 
13: "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken dili- 
gently unto my commandments which I command you 
this day, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him 
with all your heart and ivith all your soul" (Compare 
Joshua xx : 5; 1 Samuel xii: 20; 1 Chronicles xxviii: 9.) 
And now, as God requires heart service, we have to be 
changed in heart, in order to that service. Hence, Moses 
says: "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, 
and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live/' 
— Deut. xxx : 6. And God says : "I will give them a 
heart to know me, that I am the Lord ; and they shall 
be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall 
return unlo me with their whole heart." — Jer. xxiv : 7. 
Again : " I will give them one heart, and one way, that 
they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of 
their children after them." — Jer. xxxii : 39. Once more: 
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall 
be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your 
idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give 
you, and a new spirit will I put within you : and I will 
take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will 
give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit 
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and 
ye shall keep my judgments, and do them/' — Ezek. 
xxxvi: 25-27. (Compare Ezekiel xi : 19, 20.) 

Now, as obedience to God's command follows love — 
follows a change of the heart — it follows pardon. Then 
it is not action God requires of the impenitent sinner — it 
is contrition, penitence, faith. " For thou desirest not 
sacrifice ; else would I give it : thou delightest not in 
burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken 
spirit : a broken and a contrite heart, God, thou wilt 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 285 

not despise." — Psalms li : 16,17. Hence, such promises 
as these: " The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a 
broken heart ; and saveth such as be of a contrite 
spirit." — Psalm xxxiv : 18. "For thus saith the high 
and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name 
is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him 
also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive 
the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the 
contrite ones/' — Isaiah lvii : 15. " But to this man will 
I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, 
and trembleth at my word." — Isaiah lxvi : 2. And hence 
such a command as this : " Son, give me thy heart." — 
Prov. xxiii : 16. And such a promise as this : "And ye 
shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me 
with all your heart." — Jer. xxix : 13. And such an 
exhortation as this : " Seek the Lord while he may be 
found, call ye upon him while he is near : let the wicked 
forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts : 
and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy 
upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly par- 
don." — Isaiah Iv : 6, 7. And hence such a confession 
as this : " With my whole heart have I sought thee." — 
Psalm cxix : 10. 

From all the foregoing I feel confident that any un- 
prejudiced reader will see that for a man to be baptized 
before his heart is changed — before he loves God, and 
Christ, and Christians — is for him to bring a sacrifice 
without a heart — to perform an act abominable to God, 
and that baptism could be of no avail to such a man. It 
could only add another sin to those already committed. 
But let the sinner wait until he seeks God with the 
whole heart, and obtains a new heart and right spirit, 
and has the love of God, and of Christ, and of. the 
brethren within him, and I will defy Mr. Lard, or an\ 



286 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

one else, to get him into the water with his sins stil, 
upon him. 

And now having, by these six arguments, as I fully 
believe, established, beyond any reasonable doubt, my 
position, I shall plant myself upon it and examine Mr. 
Lard's pro.of- texts and arguments in support of his 
position. 

Before I begin this examination, I must be indulged 
in a few remarks : 

1. It will be perceived by the intelligent reader that 
either I have put a wrong construction upon the many 
proof-texts which I have brought forward in support of 
my arguments, or Mr. Lard has put a wrong construc- 
tion upon his, for the Bible does not contradict itself. 
Interpreters may put a wrong construction upon different 
passages, and thus produce a conflict, as Mr. Lard and I 
have certainly done: but the conflict is between the in- 
terpretations, not between the passages. If Mr. Lard 
has given the true interpretation to his texts, then I have 
not to mine. On the other hand, if I have given the 
true interpretation to my proof-texts, Mr. Lard has not 
to his. And now the decision of this question belongs 
to the reader. 

2. Let the reader note one thing before we advance, 
namely, that every passage brought forward by me under 
my first two arguments, and several passages in my suc- 
ceeding arguments, must be changed and added to before 
they can be at all reconciled with Mr. Lard's position or 
interpretation of his proof-texts, while his proof-texts, 
taken in their connection, do not at all conflict with 
mine. A just interpretation is all that is required. 

3. I wish the reader to note that every proof- text 
brought forward by Mr. Lard stands, in a sense, alone, 
having no parallel passage to throw light upon it; and 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 287 

that he avails himself of particular phrases or expressions 
which seem to favor his position, and attaching but one 
idea to these phrases, though no two of them are alike, 
he drags them into his service. For example : " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved" is understood 
to mean, shall be pardoned. And so : " For remission 
of sins/' "Wash away thy sins/' "Born of water;" 
u Washing of water by the word ;" " Washing of regen- 
eration /' " Baptism now saves us/' etc., etc. Whereas 
my proof-texts are uniform in expression, numerous, and 
have many parallels, and are taken by me in their plain, 
unqualified, and obvious sense. 

4. Note one more fact before we pass : I have estab- 
lished my position by the testimony of prophets and 
apostles, and the Savior himself, by taking their testimony 
without note or comment, while Mr. Lard can not go be- 
yond Pentecost and quote a word from prophet, or apostle, 
or Christ, in favor of his position, without giving it a 
prospective bearing, and he can not reconcile a large por- 
tion of what prophets, and apostles, and Christ have said, 
with his position, without putting words into their mouths 
they never uttered, or explaining away what is incon- 
gruous. Now, these things being so, the inference is 
strongly in favor of my side of this question : for it can 
scarcely be supposed that the mass of Scripture, both of 
the Old and of the New Testament, should be made thus 
to bend to a few isolated passages doubtfully interpreted. 
No, these passages must bend to the mass. 

The reader will remember that Mr. Lard's proposition 
is this : " We maintain that the sinner, though a believer, 
is still required to repent and be baptized, in order to the 
remission of his sins, and, consequently, that they are not 
remitted before, and without baptism." 

There are two errors, as I conceive, in this proposition. 



288 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

to which it is necessary to call attention : 1st. The sin- 
ner, though a believer, is still required to repent; 2d. Sins 
are not remitted before and without baptism. 

The first part of this proposition is erroneous, because 
it implies that one can be a believer in impenitence. 
My proposition speaks of a penitent believer. Mr. Lard's 
of an impenitent believer. Now, I maintain that there 
is no such thing as an impenitent believer. In proof of 
this, I state the fact that in every passage in the New 
Testament where repentance and faith are spoken of, 
repentance is put.first. The following are the only ex- 
amples : Mark i: 14, 15: " Now, after that John was 
put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the 
Gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is 
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye, 
and believe the Gospel.' 11 Here Jesus puts repentance first. 
Acts xx : 21 : u Testifying both to the Jews, and also to 
the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward, our 
Lord Jesus Christ." Here Paul observes the same order. 
Matt, xxi : 32 : u For John came unto you in the way 
of righteousness, and ye believed him not : but the pub- 
licans and the harlots believed him : and ye, when ye 
had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe 
him" Here the Savior represents repentance as neces- 
sary to faith. 

Not only do the Scriptures represent repentance as 
preceding faith, but the nature of the case suggests the 
same order. Faith recognizes Jesus Christ as our Re- 
deemer and Savior, and expects the forgiveness of sins 
through him. It must, therefore, be the act of one who 
feels his need of salvation and forgiveness; but impeni- 
tent sinners do not feel this need, therefore they can not 
exercise this faith. 

But one may be ready to ask, Can an unbeliever be* 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 289 

come penitent? Does not Paul say that he who comes 
to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder 
of them that diligently seek him ? Yes, Paul says that 
in Hebrews xi : 6. The truth in the case is this : an 
atheist can not repent, nor can an infidel or deist. Men 
must acknowledge the being of God before they can be 
conscious of having offended him; and they must recog- 
nize the existence and authority of his law before they 
can feel that they have transgressed ; and hence, so far 
as faith has respect to these, it must precede repentance. 
But the faith of which we are now speaking has respect 
to Jesus Christ as " lifted up" (John iii : 14) for our 
deliverance from the guilt and thralldom of sin. Now, 
we will never believe in, or trust him as such, until we 
feel our guilt and our thralldom ; but we never feel these 
while impenitent, therefore we never thus believe or trust 
in Christ while impenitent. Now, as the faith that issues 
in the forgiveness of sins, is faith toward our Lord Jesus 
Christ, or an actual trust in him for salvation, it is not, 
and can not be exercised only by penitent sinners. Let 
these remarks suffice on this point. 

Henceforth we have to do with the second part of Mr. 
Lard's proposition: " Sins are not remitted before and 
without baptism." I must do Mr. Lard the justice to 
say he does not regard this as a universal law. He 
specifies its limitations. He says: "We speak not of 
the innocent babe, the irresponsible idiot, or untaught 
heathen." In another place he extends the limitation, 
(p. 236 :) f On the contrary he (Mr. Campbell) teaches 
that the following classes will be saved without entering 
it, (the kingdom of God, which Mr. Lard and Mr. Camp- 
bell contend none can enter without baptism :) 1. All 
infants; 2. All idiots; 3. Many heathens; 4. Many 
honest people, who are kept in profound ignorance 
13 



290 . AN EXAMINATION OF LARD^S REVIEW OF 

of their duty by the teaching of such men as Mr. 
Jeter." 

That is rich. God will save the infant and idiot with- 
out baptism, on account of irresponsibility, and many of 
the heathens and Pedobaptists and Baptists, without re- 
quiring them to be immersed in order to the remission 
of their sins, on account of ignorance! What a fearful 
thing, then, knowledge is ! It makes essential one more 
term of salvation! Be it known,, then, that u a little 
knowledge is a dangerous thing/' Campbellites have 
superior knowledge of duty to other people ; therefore, 
while God will save others without it, he will not save 
Campbellites unless they go into the water ! Mr. Lard's 
limitations plainly show that baptism is essential to the 
salvation of no one but a Campbellite. Ought we not 
with this to be content? No, we can not be, because we 
apprehend that there is danger of supplanting the blood 
of Christ by the waters of baptism, and of causing the 
soul to rest here and fail of the blessedness of the man 
to whom the Lord imputes righteousness without works. 

§ 10. — MR. LARD'S FIRST ARGUMENT. 

Mr. Lard begins the defense of his own position thus : 
"The passage on which we base our first argument is the 
following : ' Go ye into all the world and preach the Gos- 
pel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 1 " 

I can not transcribe the whole of Mr. Lard's argument 
upon this text, but I will notice all the material points 
which he has made. 

1. He says: "The salvation here spoken of is that 
primary salvation which consists in the remission of 
sins." 

2. It depends on two conditions : belief and baptism. 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 291 

3. He then states a rule which he thinks clinches the 
nail : " When salvation is promised to any person, or af- 
firmed of him j on certain named conditions, though it may 
depend on more conditions than those named, it can never 
depend on Iess.' } 

Now, taking these three postulates as true, it follows, 
that in this passage the Savior has made remission of 
sins depend on belief and baptism. Then let us exam- 
ine the postulates : 

1. " The salvation here spoken of, is that primary sal- 
vation which consists in the remission of sins." Is this 
so? I think not, for the following reasons : 

1st. Salvation does not consist merely in the remission 
of sins. It consists in more than remission. If it did 
not, it would still leave us in the possession of an im- 
pure heart and carnal affections. The remission of sins 
is only a part of salvation. While it separates our sins 
as far from us as the east is from the west, it creates within 
us clean hearts, and renews within us right spirits. While 
God cleanses us from all our filthiness, and removes our 
transgressions from us, he, at the same time, takes away 
the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. While he 
remembers our sins no more, he writes his law upon our 
hearts, and imprints it upon our minds, and he thus lays 
the foundation for our subsequent obedience to him, and 
of our final glorification in heaven. 

2d. It is not that primary salvation of which Mr. Lard 
speaks. I know of but one salvation. Regeneration 
and pardon is salvation begun. A continuance in obe- 
dience and well-doing, is salvation in progress ; and 
final acceptance and admission into heaven, is salvation 
completed. It is, therefore, a salvation from sin. — Matt. 
i : 21. It is a salvation from ungodliness. — Rom. xi : 26. 
And it is a salvation from wrath. — Rom. v: 9; 1 Thess. 



292 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

i : 10. But Mr. Lard's notion is, that a sinner, when he 
believes and is baptized, obtains a primary and present 
salvation, i. c, remission of past sins. And he now be- 
comes a candidate for final, or a secondary salvation. 
But whether he shall ever obtain this final salvation, is 
left to be determined afterward. And now his view is, 
that Jesus here speaks of this primary, and not of this 
secondary salvation. Here he is evidently wrong. The 
Bible knows nothing of these primary and secondary 
salvations. And even if it did, we would be required to 
take the term here in its secondary sense, because it is 
used antithetically with " shall be damned :" " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that be- 
lieveth not, shall be damned" Antitheses run parallel 
with each other, and they must be co-extensive. Now, 
whatever is the meaning and extent of " shall be damned/' 
the term, " shall be saved, " must be of equal extent. 
There is a sense in which an unbeliever is condemned 
already, (John iii : 18.) And so there is a sense in 
which he that believeth is not condemned, (same verse;) 
but the text we are now considering speaks not of the 
present, but of the future — "shall be saved," "shall be 
damned." The term, "shall be damned" is expressive 
of the final issue or result of unbelief, and, therefore, 
" shall be saved" is expressive of the final issue or result 
of faith and obedience. 

2. This salvation, Mr. Lard tells us, depends on belief* 
and baptism. Well, I will admit, for the present, for 
argument sake, that it does, and yet contend that it does 
not sustain Mr. Lard's proposition. Mr. Lard's propo- 
sition is, that remission of sins depends on belief and 
baptism. The text says: Salvation depends on belief 
and baptism, (meaning by the term, salvation completed, 
not salvation begun, as I have shown.) Now, can the 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 293 

tpxt sustain the proposition ? Does it follow that because 
one thing depends upon a certain condition, another 
thing also depends upon it? Surely not. And right 
here Mr. Lard's sophistry appears. He has remission of 
sins in his proposition, he has saved in his text, and then 
makes his text sustain his proposition, by the convenient 
method of taking it for granted that this saved u consists 
in the remission of sins !" But now the reader may be 
curious to know in what way I will take back my admis- 
sion that salvation depends on belief and baptism. Well, 
I will take it back by this single quotation : " I will have 
mercy and not sacrifice." — Matt, xii : 7. No man can be 
saved without possessing the spirit of obedience. He 
must have it in his heart to obey God. And where men 
have it in their hearts to obey God, they only need the 
knowledge of his will, and the opportunity of doing it, 
to obey. And where the spirit or will is possessed, but 
the knowledge or the opportunity is wanting, the will is 
taken for the deed on the above principle. Just as God 
justified David in unlawfully eating the showbread, and 
Jesus his disciples in plucking ears of corn on the Sab- 
bath day, though the law of the Sabbath seemed to have 
been infringed, upon the principle of having mercy and 
not sacrifice, so will he accept of the obedient believer, 
though he may, through .ignorance or inability, fail to 
keep all his commands — fail to be baptized. But I never 
have affirmed, and I presume that no Baptist ever has, 
that one can be saved without baptism, who, knowing it 
to be his duty, yet contemns the ordinance. Such a one 
would be condemned, not so much for the want of bap- 
tism as for the want of the very spirit of religion : "He 
that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is 
that loveth me : and he that loveth me, shall be loved of 
my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself 



294 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

to him/' — John xiv : 21. " For this is the love of God^ 
that we keep his commandments; and his commandments 
are not grievous/' — 1 John v : 3. " He that saith, I 
know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, 
and the truth is not in him/' — 1 John ii : 4. 

From the above the reader can see that I am willing 
to take, in all its force, the text " He that believeth, 
and is baptized, shall be saved/ 7 The faith which saves 
is penitent, cordial, and obedient. Its obedience begins 
with baptism, but it does not stop there, but, by patient 
continuance in well-doing, it seeks for glory, and honor, 
and immortality, and eternal life. But be it remem- 
bered that while salvation is affirmed of him who be- 
lieves and is baptized, justification is never so affirmed. 
So far as conditions on our part are concerned, it is 
uniformly affirmed of the believer, (see first two argu- 
ments,) without the mention of anything else, (except by 
James, in the case of Abraham offering Isaac, which has 
already been explained.) I claim, therefore, that " He 
that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved/' yields no 
support to Mr. Lard's proposition, and offers no objection 
to mine. 

But how about Mr. Lard's rule ? Well, it. like his 
text, even if it were sound, can give his proposition no 
support, because the affirmation of salvation, on certain 
named conditions, is not the affirmation of remission on 
those conditions. But is the rule sound ? I think not. 
I believe that all logicians admit that a rule which proves 
too much is unsound. Well, the following example 
shows that Mr. Lard's rule proves too much : Luke 
xviii : 18-26. Here we have recorded the case of a 
young ruler, who, full of anxiety, came to Jesus, and 
asked him what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus 
required, among other things, that he should sell all he 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 295 

had, and distribute to the poor, and affirmed that he 
should have treasure in heaven. Now note, to have 
eternal life, to have treasure in heaven, and to be saved, 
are equivalent expressions. This is proved by the ques- 
tion of the apostles, " Who, then, can be saved ?" 

Now, according to Mr. Lard's rule, as salvation is here 
affirmed of this young ruler on the condition of his sell- 
ing all he had, and giving the proceeds to the poor, it 
can never depend on less than this condition ! Is Mr. 
Lard prepared for this conclusion ? If so, he is still in 
his sins, and without eternal life ! for he has never him- 
self complied with it ! 

Jesus finally affirmed, " There is no man that hath left 
house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for 
the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive mani- 
fold more in this present time, and in the world to come 
life everlasting." — Vs. 29, 30. Now, let Mr. Lard apply 
his rule to this affirmation, and then ask himself if he 
has ever forsaken house, parents, brethren, wife, children, 
for the kingdom of God's sake? If he has not, it is 
time he was up and doing : for he must either do these 
things, or loose his rule, or lose his soul ! ! 

So much, then, for Mr. Lard's argument and first 
proof-text. 

MR. LARD'S SECOND ARGUMENT. 

" The passage on which we found our second argu- 
ment," says Mr. Lard, u is the following: 

"'Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit:— Acts ii: 38." 

Mr. Lard affirms that "this passage teaches that bap- 
tism, with repentance, is for — that is, is necessary to — the 



296 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

remission of sins ; that it makes remission depend on 
baptism in precisely the same sense in which it makes 
it depend on repentance; and that a connection is thus 
established between them of a nature so permanent that 
remission is, in all cases, (previous exceptions aside,) 
consequent on baptism and never precedes it.' 7 

Now, is this true ? I pronounce it untrue, for the fol- 
lowing reasons : 

1. It makes this text incongruous with the general 
tenor of Scripture on this subject, (see first two argu- 
ments.) and with the declarations of the Apostle Peter, 
made elsewhere. Acts x : 43 : " To him give all the 
prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believ- 
eth in him shall receive remission of sins/ 7 Peter here 
asserts that the testimony of all the prophets is, that re- 
mission of sins is through the name of Jesus Christ, and 
received by every believer. But this Mr. Lard's inter- 
pretation of his language at Pentecost denies. He makes 
Peter there deny remission to the believer unless he is 
baptized. 

And now, the reader must see that we must either pro- 
nounce Mr. Lard's interpretation of Peter's language at 
Pentecost false, or we must add to his language at Csesa- 
rea. We must understand him as saying, at the latter 
place, " To him give all the prophets witness, that through 
his name whosoever believes, and is baptized, shall receive 
remission of sins."' And now, suppose that Peter had 
actually said that, and we were to inquire which of the 
prophets had so testified, could our inquiry ever be 
answered? No. We might read from the beginning of 
Genesis to the end of Malachi, and we would meet with 
no such prophetic testimony. On the other hand, we 
meet with the testimony of many in support of the dec- 
laration as Peter has actually made it. Let us examine 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 297 

the testimony of some of them. God said to Abra- 
ham : "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth 
be blessed." — Gen. xxii : 18. Well, Paul tells us that 
the term " seed " here means Christ. " He saith not. 
And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy 
seed, which is Christ." — Gal. iii : 16. And this was said 
to Abraham because the Scripture foresaw that God 
would justify the heathen through faith. — Gal. iii: 8. 
To justify is to pardon. 

Again, Moses says : "Abraham believed God, and it (his 
faith) was counted to him for righteousness." — Gen. xv : 6. 
So Paul says of all believers : " To him that worketh 
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, 
his faith is counted for righteousness." — Rom. iv : 5. 
And the fact that Abraham's faith was counted to him 
for righteousness " was not written for his sake alone, 
but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe 
on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." — ■ 
Rom. iv : 23, 24. And now, just as no act of Abra- 
ham's intervened between his faith and his justification 
as a condition of it, so no act of ours is to intervene be- 
tween our faith and our justification as a condition of it. 
This, then, is the testimony of Moses as explained by Paul. 
Compare Galatians iii : 14 ; and Romans iv : 9-16. 

Let us next examine Isaiah. " Therefore thus saith 
the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a 
stone, a tried stone, a precious-corner stone, a sure 
foundation : he that believeth shall not make haste"-^* 
Isaiah xxviii : 16. Here Isaiah testifies of Jesus Christ, 
and of the benefits the believer receives through him. 
What is the import of his testimony ? When the prophet 
says, " He that believeth on him shall not make haste," 
does he include the forgiveness of sins? I will let Paul 

answer : " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord 
13* 



298 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Jesus, and sbalt believe in thine heart that God hath 
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with 
the heart, man believeth unto righteousness ; and with 
the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. For the 
Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be 
ashamed." — Rom. x : 9-11. Here, then, according to 
Paul, this language of Isaiah proves, that with the heart 
man believes unto righteousness, i. e., justification. It 
proves, then, that his faith eventuates in pardon : for, as 
before remarked, justification includes pardon. Be it 
noted that faith is, but baptism is not, in the testimony 
of Isaiah. 

We have not only the commentary of Paul, but also 
of Peter, on this testimony of Isaiah : " Wherefore also 
it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a 
chief corner-stone, elect, precious : and he that believeth 
on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore 
which believe he is precious." — 1 Peter ii : 6, 7. Here is 
a perfect agreement between the testimony and the com- 
mentary. And both agree with Peter's declaration at 
Cgesarea. 

We will next examine Habakkuk. His testimony is: 
"The just shall live by faith:' Well, what is the im- 
port of this testimony ? I will let Paul answer : " For I 
am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the 
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; 
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is 
the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith :" 
(or as Macknight, as I think, more correctly renders it, 
"For therein is the righteousness of God by faith revealed 
in order to faith;") n as it is written, The just shall live 
by faiths Here, again, we see a perfect accordance be- 
tween the testimony of Habakkuk and the commentary 
of Paul and the declaration of Peter at Csesarea. 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 299 

Paul comments on this testimony of the prophet in 
another place thus : " But that no man is justified by the 
law in the sight of God, it is evident : for, The just shall 
live by faith" — Gal. iii : 11. The apostle is here plac- 
ing justification upon the condition of faith to the exclu- 
sion of works, and he sustains himself by the prophet's 
testimony. How different this from Mr. Lard's inter- 
pretation of Peter's words at Pentecost. He would keep 
the believer in a state of death and condemnation until 
baptized! Habakkuk says, the just live by faith; but 
Mr. Lard says, they live by faith and baptism ! 

Paul gives us a third commentary on this testimony of 
the prophet, thus: " Now the just shall live by faith: 
but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleas- 
ure in him. But we are not of them who draw back 
unto perdition ; but of them that believe to the saving of 
the soul." — Heb. x : 38, 39. Here Paul does not say, we 
are of them who believe, and are baptized to the saving 
of the soul. And, had he said it, he could not have 
proved it by Habakkuk. 

I might quote the testimony of other prophets, but 
these are ample. And I prefer these because we have 
apostolic comments upon them. The testimony of the 
prophet, and the commentary of the apostle, form a united 
testimony of such strength as can not be resisted. 

And now, reader, shall we force this statement of Peter 
at Csesarea, into an agreement with Mr. Lard's interpre- 
tation of his words at Pentecost, or shall w 7 e reject his 
interpretation and explain for ourselves Peter's words at 
Pentecost so as to make them harmonize with his declara- 
tion at Caesarea ? Evidently we must do the latter, be- 
cause this declaration is backed by the testimony of the 
prophets, as we have seen. And, methinks, if the proph- 
ets could again speak, they would with united voice say : 



300 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

" We never, in all our lives, said that a believer in Jesus 
could not receive the remission of his sins unless he went 
into the water ! I" 

Before I proceed to examine the meaning of Peter's 
declaration at Pentecost, there is one more objection 
which I must urge against Mr. Lard's interpretation. It 
is this : If the words of the apostle Peter make baptism 
and repentance equally necessary to remission, so do they 
make them equally necessary to the reception of the Holy 
Spirit. This also conflicts with Peter's statements else- 
where. Let us go to Acts xv : Here the apostles and 
elders have come together to consider the question which 
the Judaizing teachers had sprung upon them, viz.: that 
the Gentiles must be circumcised after the manner of 
Moses, or they could not be saved. Peter took the neg- 
ative of this question. Now, let us hear his speech : 
" Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago 
God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my 
mouth should hear the w T ord of the Gospel and believe. 
And God, who knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, 
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us : and 
put no difference between us and them, purifying their 
hearts by faith." 

Here the apostle refers to the conversion of Cornelius 
and his friends, at Caesarea, which took place about ten 
years before this meeting at Jerusalem. (See Acts'x.) 
Now, let us inquire how God gave the Holy Spirit to 
these Gentiles. Did he bestow this gift upon them on 
condition of their baptism ? No ; they received the gift 
before they were baptized. Now, if God would not be- 
stow this gift on the Jews at Pentecost, only on condi- 
tion of their baptism, and yet gave it to the Gentiles 
without any such condition, then he put a material dif- 
ference between them. But Peter says, in the above 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 301 

speech, he did not! There is no escape from this. 
Peter most certainly understood his own language at 
Pentecost, and in the council. Did he contradict him- 
self? No. Then there can be no doubt that he did not 
mean at Pentecost what Mr. Lard said he did. 

This conclusion is corroborated by two other consid- 
erations, namely : The ground of the astonishment felt by 
those of the circumcision who accompanied Peter to Cse- 
sarea, and his defense before the Church at Jerusalem. 
The ground of the astonishment of these Jews was, not 
that the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost 
before baptism, but that they received it at all. But if 
they had understood Peter's words at Pentecost as Mr. 
Lard does, the former would have been their ground of 
astonishment. 

In his defense before the Church at Jerusalem, Peter 
said : "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on 
all them who heard the word, as on us at the beginning. 
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he 
said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch, then, as 
God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who be- 
lieved on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could 
withstand God?" Hearing this the Church "held their 
'peace and glorified God, saying, Then hath God to the 
Gentiles also granted repentance unto life." 

Now, be it remembered, that the very three thousand, 
or at least the most of them, to whom Peter said, " Re- 
pent and be baptized, etc., and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost," and who then gladly received the 
word, were baptized and added to the Church, heard Peter's 
defense. Then is it not a wonder that they held their 
peace? When Peter said, that "God gave the Gentiles 
the like gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord 



302 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Jesus Christ," is it not a wonder they had not said, 
11 Stop, Peter ! Are you not mistaken ? Did you not 
tell us at Pentecost that we must repent and be baptized 
in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? And did 
you not just now tell us, that while you were speaking 
the Holy Grhost fell on the Gentiles, and hence before 
their baptism? And are you going now to tell us that 
God gave this gift to them as he did unto us?" Now, 
these two considerations place it beyond doubt that Mr. 
Lard has mistaken the meaning of Peter's language 
at Pentecost. He could not have uttered sentiments 
there incompatible with those uttered by him at Cassarea 
and before the council and Church at Jerusalem. 

I shall now undertake to show what Peter did mean. 
This, however, I must remark, is not necessary so far as 
the issue between me and Mr. Lard is concerned. It is 
enough for me to show, as I have done, that he has not 
given its meaning. 

Peter does not make repentance and baptism sus- 
tain the same relation to remission of sins. The word 
repent is independent of the remainder of the sentence. 
It is not, " Every one of you repent and be baptized/' 
etc. The nominative to "repent" is not "every one," 
but "ye." The Greek is pstavorjoait', an imperative in 
the plural. It can not, therefore, have a singular nomi- 
native. The word rendered "be baptized/' is fio.TttioQzx^. 
It is not an imperative, nor is it plural. " Every one " 
is its nominative. Hence, the literal and correct trans- 
lation would be : " Repent ye, and let every one of you 
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
sion of sins." " For remission of sins," then, whatever 
may be its meaning, is stated as a reason for the latter 
command and not for the former. The command to re- 
pent is given imperatively, without a reason — Repent ye. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 303 

There was reason enough for this found in their conscious 
guilt and consequent alarm. But the reason why they 
should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is not so 
apparent, hence a reason is given : " For the remission 
of sins/' This fact cuts up Mr. Lard's argument by the 
roots, for it is based upon the hypothesis that " repent" 
and " be baptized " take the same nominative, when they 
do not. 

In order to convince the reader that I am not here 
misrepresenting, I will give a long quotation : " Finally, 
we conclude, from the grounds now before us, that the 
relation of baptism to remission of sins is such that bap- 
tism, like repentance, is necessary to remission ; or that 
remission depends on baptism in precisely the same sense 
in which it depends on repentance. And, if there is 
either value in criticism or reliance to be placet! in argu- 
ment, the conclusion is indisputable. 

" But let us suppose this position to be denied, and 
that it is maintained that baptism sustains to remission 
the relation of a subsequent to a former act, and what 
follows? Clearly, that repentance likewise sustains to 
remission the relation of a subsequent to a former act. 
But this proves too much, and hence is false. But we 
wish to exhibit this position, together with its conse- 
quences, even to the eye ; and, in order to do so, will 
again have recourse to the passage, from which, after 
transposing the clauses as before, we will first omit the 
word ' repent,' thus : Every one of you be baptized, («$,) 
because your sins are remitted. This is exactly Mr. 
Jeter's position — a tough one, truly. But let us grant 
that it is true, or, rather, that we have at last hit on the 
true meaning of the particle, and that it is unalterable. 
We will now replace the word c repent :' Every one of you 
repent sc$ remission of sins." 



304 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Just so Mr. Lard had expressed himself before : " Ev 
ery one of you repent and be baptized, st$ remission of 
sins." Now, reader, you see here that Mr. Lard makes 
" every one of you " the nominative to both verbs. Peter 
did not do so. Nor will any scholar do so. And Mr. 
Lard's doing so is to be attributed either to ignorance or 
dishonesty. Mr. Lard labors thus ingeniously and hard 
in order to force upon us his translation of e&$. He 
knows we will not allow that repentance can be urged by 
the consideration of a past remission ; and hence, if he 
can make both repentance and baptism be for remission, 
he thinks he has us cornered. But in the net which he 
hid, is his own foot taken. In making out his case he 
has misrepresented the apostle. Peter never said, " Every 
one of you repent." And now, I wish to inquire, why 
did Peter 'change the nominative and number of the sec- 
ond verb? Why did he not say: .Repent ye, and be 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ; or, as Mr. Lard 
has it : " Every one of you repent and be baptized," etc. 
There is surely some design in his using neither of these 
forms of expression, but instead thereof choosing the one 
he did. Not so did he speak in Acts iii : 19: "Repent 
and be converted." Both verbs here are in the plural 
and have the same nominative. 

The reason why the apostle did change the nominative 
after "repent," and before "be baptized," is found in 
the fact that repentance is a command of universal obli- 
gation, while baptism is not. Baptism is obligatory only 
on penitent believers. Peter commands the whole multi- 
tude to repent : but he commands such only of that 
multitude as obeyed the first command, to be baptized. 
Hence it is said in the forty-first verse : " Then they 
that gladly received his ward were baptized." 

This view of the subject is strengthened by the fact 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 305 

that in no place are persons commanded to repent in the 
name of Jesus Christ. An} 7 one who will be at the pains 
of examining the following passages, can test the truth 
of this remark : Matthew iii : 2 ; iv : 17 ; Mark i : 15 ; 
vi : 12; Luke xiii : 3, 5; Acts iii: 19; viii : 22; xvii : 
30 ; xxvi : 20. But baptism is frequently if not always 
enjoined in his name. (See Acts viii: 16; x : 48 ; xix : 
5; Romans vi : 3; Galatians iii : 27.) 

If Mr. Lard's view of the passage be correct, it might 
be read, and it must be understood, thus : Repent every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of 
sins; and be baptized every one of you in the name of 
Jesus Christ for remission of sins. But, as we have seen, 
this will not do. 

The foregoing considerations show, I think, conclu- 
sively, that " repent " must be considered by itself as 
resting upon the ground of universal obligation. And, 
thus considering it, let us now take up the phrase, "For 
the remission of sins/' This, I have said, was given by 
Peter as a reason why they should be baptized in the 
name of Jesus Christ. As they had denied Jesus before 
Pilate, when he put to them that significant interrogatory, 
4i Shall I crucify your king ?" by saying : c i We have no 
king but Caesar;" and when he gave them the alterna- 
tive of Christ or Barabbas, they rejected him and chose 
the murderer, it was now their duty to acknowledge his 
sovereignty. God had made him both Lord and Christ, 
that unto him every knee should bow ; and now to him 
they must bow. But they must do it not only because 
of his authority , but also by way of acknowledging the 
great benefits they were to derive through him. One of 
these great benefits is the forgiveness of sins : li In whom 
we have redemption through his blood, even the forgive- 
ness of sins." — Col. i : 14. This was the consideration 



306 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

mentioned by Paul to the Corinthians, in his reproof of 
them for their divisions : " Was Paul crucified for you ? 
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ?" how 
closely should we cling to Jesus Christ in view of the 
fact he was crucified for us ! Should not his dying love 
constrain us to move in swift obedience to all his com- 
mands ! 

Now, as these Jews were assured of pardon through 
Jesus Christ, as having been exalted a Prince and Savior 
to give repentance and remission, they should, by a sub- 
mission to baptism, acknowledge it, and declare their 
hope and faith in it. And this I deem the force of si$ 
to be. When el$ is connected with an individual or per- 
son to whom the action of baptism has respect, it is ex- 
pressive of the faith of the baptized in that person, and 
of his subjection to him. And when it is connected 
with a doctrine or fact, it is expressive of the faith of the 
baptized in that fact or doctrine and his reception of it. 
Let us test the truth of these remarks by examples : 

Matthew xxviii : 19: "Baptizing them (sii) into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost/' Now, what is the force of £($ here ? Does it 
not indicate that the party thus baptized does by his 
baptism declare his faith in these Divine persons and his 
subjection to them ? And when it is said of the Samar- 
itans, (Acts viii : 16,) that they were baptized (ft^) into 
the name of the Lord Jesus, is it not meant that they, 
by their baptism, declared their faith in him, and their 
subjection to him? And when it is said, (1 Corinthiana 
x : 1, 2,) that "all our fathers were under the cloud, and 
all passed through the sea; and were all baptized (ftj) 
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" does it not 
mean that what they then did, which is called their bap- 
tism was expressive of their faith in, and subjection to, 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 307 

Moses as their commander and leader? So true is it, 
therefore, that so many of us as have been baptized («$) 
into Christ, bave^i^ on Christ, (Gal. iii : 27.) 

Of facts and doctrines we have the following examples: 
"Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ, were baptized (ji{) into his death ? There- 
fore we are buried with him by baptism (ft?) into death. " 
— Rom. vi : 3, 4. Our faith is that Christ died for our 
sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, 
and that he arose again the third day, according to the 
Scriptures. Well, all this we profess and declare in bap- 
tism. We also acknowledge ourselves to be dead unto 
sin. This we also acknowledge in our baptism. And 
this is the force of sl$ in these passages. 

Another example is found in Acts xix : 3 : " Unto («$) 
what then were ye baptized ? And they said, («$) 
Unto John's baptism?" The persons addressed here 
were the twelve disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus, 
and unto whom he said : " Have ye received the Holy 
Ghost since ye believed?" Their answer to him was, 
" We have not so much as heard whether there be any 
Holy Ghost." This shows the meaning of Paul's ques- 
tion, " Unto what then were ye baptized?" Paul in- 
stantly inferred from their answer that there must be 
some defect in their baptism. They could not have been 
baptized aright if they were the victims of such igno- 
rance. If they had been baptized into the Holy Ghost 
as the third adorable person in the godhead, of course 
they would have had some knowledge of him. They 
could not declare their faith in, and subjection to, a per- 
son whom they did not know. Their answer, " Unto 
John's baptism," means that their baptism was express- 
ive of their faith in the doctrines inculcated by John, 
and their subjection to the obligations his baptism iin« 



308 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

posed, the chief of which was, "that they should believe 
on him who should come after" John. So here, in our 
text: "Let every one of you be baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ (sis) for the remission of sins." As Peter 
preached to these Jews remission of sins through Jesus 
Christ, in opposition to their former notions of justifica- 
tion by the law of Moses, (compare Acts xiii : 38, 39,) 
and they cordially embraced this doctrine — gladly re- 
ceived his word — he would have them declare it in the 
overt act of baptism. As this is the force of st$ in such 
connection, it touches not the question whether these 
persons received the remission of sins before or after bap- 
tism. It simply teaches that they, by their baptism in 
the name of Jesus Christ, declared their faith in the doc- 
trine of remission through him, and recognized it as the 
great blessing coming to them through him. 

Here I must notice Mr. Lard's unfairness, (I do not 
know what else to call it,) in arraying before his readers 
ten examples of et$ in the sense of " in order to" for the 
purpose of forcing upon them the acceptance of his in- 
terpretation of st$ in this passage. He has given examples 
which are not parallel : for baptism is not in one of them. 
Let us take parallel examples and try his rendering, and 
see how it looks : 

1. Matthew iii: 11 : "I indeed baptize you «j (in order 
to) repentance." Will that do? 

2. Matthew xxviii : 19 : " Baptizing them st§ (in order 
to) the name of the Father," etc. Will you have that? 

3. Acts viii : 16: "Only they were baptized «$ (in 
order to) the name of the Lord Jesus." Does that suit? 

4. Romans vi : 3, 4: "Know ye not that so many of 
us as were baptized us (in order to) Jesus Christ, were 
baptized sis (in order to) his death? Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism <■«,.- (in order to) death." 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 309 

5. 1 Corinthians x: 2: All our fathers " were baptized 
tis (in order to) Moses/' 

6. Acts xix : 3 : " We are baptized «$ (in order to) 
John's baptism." 

7. Verse 5 : " When they heard this they were bap- 
tized £*$ (in order to) the name of the Lord Jesus." 

8. 1. Corinthians i: 13: "Were ye baptized u$ (in 
order to) the name of Paul?" 

9. Verse 15 : " Lest any should say that I had bap- 
tized e&s (in order to) my own name." 

10. Galatians iii : 27 : " For as many as have been 
baptized »$ (in order to) Christ, have put on Christ." 

These are all the examples where baptism and sis are 
in similar connection to that in the passage we are con- 
sidering, and we see that not one of them will allow s&§ to 
be rendered in order to. But, as before remarked, the 
force of si$ in these examples is to show what the recipient 
of the rite declared and professed. If st$ is followed by 
the name of a person, then the baptized declared his faith 
in that person, and his subjection to him. If si* is fol- 
lowed by a fact or doctrine, then the recipient of the rite 
declared his faith in that fact or doctrine, and his recep- 
tion of it. 

Header, you have now my view of the passage in Acts 
ii : 38, before you, and also my objections to Mr. Lard's 
interpretation, and I now leave it with you to decide 
whether or not I have wrested the passage from him. I 
have clearly shown that the command to repent and the 
command to be baptized are not to be construed together 
as sustaining the same relation to remission of sins, be- 
cause they have not the same nominative, and because 
repentance is never commanded in the name of Jesus 
Christ. I have also clearly shown that to understand 
Peter as Mr. Lard does, is to make him contradict him- 



310 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD ? S REVIEW OF 

self, and to make him utter a sentiment in conflict with 
the general tenor of Scripture on the subject of remission. 
T pass to Mr. Lard's third argument. 

§ 12. — mr. lard's third argument. 

" As the basis of our third argument/' says Mr. Lard. 
"we subjoin the following: 'And now why tarriest thou? 
arise, and be baptized, and tcash away thy sins, calling on 
the name of the Lord.' — Acts xxii : 16. " 

To give the reader the full benefit of Mr. Lard's view 
of this passage, I will here give a lengthy quotation from 
him : 

" That the expression is metaphorical is granted. Sins 
are not washed away : they are remitted. Upon this no 
controversy can arise. But what is there in the expres- 
sion to indicate or suggest this? The term rendered 
loash away is, in the original, a strong compound verb, 
which in its simple form denotes to wash merely. Here, 
however, it is compounded with a particle which signifies 
from, denoting the separation of one thing from another, 
and which has its force represented in the expression by 
the term away. Hence, in its compound form the verb 
signifies not to wash simply, but to separate one thing 
from another by washing. It implies a separation, and 
expresses how it is effected. 

" First, then, it implies a separation : and this is in- 
deed the radical conception in remission. For not only 
does the term remits, in its un derived Latin form, as well 
as in English, signify to send away, send from, or let go, 
(in which evidently the conception of separation is es- 
sentially involved,) but such, also, is the exact meaning 
of the Greek word which remit translates. Indeed, how 
one thing can be washed away from another without 
being separated from it, is not conceivable. Hence, we 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 311 

conclude that separation — i. e., of sins, or remission — is 
the radical conception in the expression — the thing for 
which it stands. 

" Second : but not only does the word imply a separa- 
tion, it expresses how it is effected : namely, by a wash- 
ing. Separation is its radical, unfigurative meaning, the 
thing it denotes ; and the metaphor consists in this: that 
the separation is represented as effected by, or depending 
on, a washing, which, it is hardly necessary to add, con- 
sisted in being baptized. 

" But this view, in effect, represents Paul as being com- 
manded to be baptized, and thereby to separate himself 
from his sins. Nor can the view be deemed for from 
correct when it is remembered that artoxovacu is middle, 
and is hence to be construed as having this force. But 
how is it that a person can separate himself from his sins 
when in reality they are separated from him, or remitted, 
as an act of mercy, by our heavenly Father? Clearly, by 
complying with the conditions, and in this way alone, on 
which the separation depends. 

" Since, therefore, the conception which lies at the very 
bottom of the expression in hand is separation, and since 
this is the radical idea in remission, we conclude that the 
exact and full force of the passage is : Arise and be bap- 
tized, and thereby separate yourself from your sins — put 
them away ; or, (which is evidently the sense,) Arise 
and he baptized, and your sins shall be remitted." 

There is some ingenuity in that reasoning. Still there 
lurks sophistry there. But before I attempt to point it 
out, I must offer what are to me inseparable objections 
to Mr. Lard's view : 

1. If Mr. Lard has given a correct interpretation to 
these words of Ananias, Paul so understood him, and he 
must, therefore, have understood that, as it was needful 



312 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

for him to be baptized in order to have his sins remitted, 
so was it needful for all other believers. Taking this 
view of the subject, it is impossible to account for the 
fact that in all his writings on the subject of justification, 
the apostle has not said one word about it. Instead of 
saying anything that gives the least hint or implication 
that a man must be baptized in order to be justified or 
have his sins remitted, he has said things that have 
brought the whole Christian world, outside of the Roman 
Catholic and Campbellite Churches, to a different con- 
clusion. 

Reader, can you imagine that the man who wrote what 
we find in Romans i : 16, 17 ; iii : 21-31 : iv : 1, 16, 24; 
v : 1, 2 ; x : 1-10 ; Galatians ii : 16 ; iii : 8, 9, 11 ; Ephe- 
sians ii : 8, 9 ; and Philippians iii : 8, 9, could agree with 
Mr. Lard? Or that he could preach as he did in Acts 
xiii : 38, 39? Can you imagine how he could say, Christ 
sent him not to baptize, (1 Corinthians i: 17,) when he 
sent him to the Gentiles for the express purpose of their 
obtaining remission of sins ? (Acts xxvi : 18.) Can you 
imagine how he could thank God that he had baptized 
so few? Would we not be astounded were we to read 
that Paul thanked God that he had caused but few to be- 
lieve? to repent? But what signify belief and repentance 
without baptism ? To convert men to the faith, and bring 
them to repentance, and then not to baptize them, is to 
lay the foundation, begin the edifice, and then abandon 
it, and thus make it a monument of our own folly ! The 
writing, the preaching, and the conduct of Paul, are all 
inexplicable if he understood Ananias as Mr. Lard does. 
He did not therefore so understand him. 

2. The Bible teaches with a clearness which nothing 
but criminal blindness can fail to see, that it is the blood 
of Christ which really cleanses from sin. 1 John i : 7 ' 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 313 

"And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from 
all sin." Revelation i: 5: "Unto him that loved us, and 
icashed us from our sins in his own blood. ' ' It is the blood of 
Christ that cleanses the conscience from dead works. — Heb. 
ix : 14. Now, as the blood of Christ really cleansed the 
conscience of Paul from dead works, as it really washed 
away his sins, Ananias did not mean what Mr. Lard says 
he did. Then the question comes up what did he mean ? 
This question I will now endeavor to answer. 

The rite of baptism is a significant ordinance. Its 
form or mode is significant, and the element in which it 
is performed is also significant. The mode symbolizes 
the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and our union 
with him in them. The water in which we are baptized 
is symbolical of that cleansing from sin we realize from 
the blood of Christ. We are washed from our sins by 
the blood of Christ in fact. We wash away our sins in 
baptism in form. The former is the reality, the latter is 
the symbol. Hence, in the former we are passive, in the 
latter we are active. In the former Christ washes us, in 
the latter we wash ourselves. 

Perfectly analogous to this is the cleansing of the 
leper, (Leviticus iv : 1-8 :) The priest was required to 
go forth out of the camp and look upon the leper, and 
if the leprosy was healed in him, then the priest was to 
take two birds, cedar wood, scarlet, hyssop, etc., for him 
that was to be cleansed. After all this, he that was 
to be cleansed, was required to wash his clothes, and 
shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water that 
he might be clean. You see, then, that there were in 
his case a real cleansing and a formal cleansing. God 
did the former, and the leper did the latter. We have a 
striking example in Mark i : 40-44 : " And there came 
* leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to 
14 



314 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

him, and saying to him, If thou wilt, thou canst make 
me clean. And Jesus, moved with compassion, put 
forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I 
will; be thou clean. And as soon as he had spoken, 
immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was 
cleansed. And he straitly charged him, and forthwith 
sent him away; and saith unto him, See thou say noth- 
ing unto any man ; but go thy way, show thyself to the 
priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses 
commanded, for a testimony unto them." 

Now, here Jesus first really cleansed this leper, and 
then, afterward, he formally cleansed himself. So I un- 
derstand the language of Ananias to Paul: "Arise and 
be baptized and wash away thy sins/' As the leper im- 
mersed himself, and washed away his leprosy after it was 
healed, so Paul was immersed and washed away his sins 
after they were pardoned. 

This view Mr. Lard tries to render ridiculous thus : 
" But let us suppose his (Jeter's) theory of remission to 
be correct. Paul's sins, then, were remitted the instant 
in which he believed, and consequently before his bap- 
tism. At that time, therefore, his sins had no existence 
whatever. They were simply a nonentity. Indeed, he 
had no sins, hence, none to be remitted, none to be washed 
away, none to be disposed of in any sense. And yet 
Ananias, the Lord's special messenger, is represented as 
saying to him : 'Arise and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins!' Did Ananias, we ask in the name of truth, 
command Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins, 
when absolutely he had not one sin remaining? If the 
theory of Mr. Jeter is correct, it casts over the deed of 
Ananias a painful suspicion ; but if the language of 
Ananias is true, it brands the theory of Mr. Jeter as a 
human invention, and false." 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 315 

In order to expose this sophistry, let me apply it to 
the case of the leper cited from Mark i : "But let us sup- 
pose his (Williams's) theory of the cleansing of the leper 
to be correct. This leper's leprosy, then, was cleansed the 
instant in which Christ said unto him, 'Be thou clean/ 
consequently before he offered for his cleansing. At that 
time, therefore, his leprosy had no existence whatever. It 
was simply a nonentity. Indeed, he had no leprosy, hence 
none to be cleansed from, none to be washed away, none 
to be disposed of in any sense. And yet Jesus, the 
Lord's own Son, is represented as saying to him, ' Go, 
offer for thy cleansing!' Did Jesus, we ask in the name 
of truth, command this leper to offer for his cleansing 
when absolutely he had not the least taint of leprosy re- 
maining? If the theory of Mr. Williams be correct, it 
casts over the deed of Jesus a painful suspicion ; but if 
the language of Jesus be true, it brands the theory of 
Mr. Williams as a human invention, and false. n 

Reader, is not the analogy complete? Now, as there 
yet remained a reason why the leper should offer for his 
cleansing, though his leprosy was really healed, so there 
remained a reason why Paul should be baptized and 
wash away his sins, though they were before really par- 
doned. 

I promised a while ago to point out the sophistry that 
lurks in Mr. Lard's reasoning as already quoted. Let 
me now redeem that promise. 

Mr. Lard admits that axoxovsao (wash away) is middle, 
and, hence, represents Paul as being commanded to sep- 
arate himself from his sins. Yet, this he denies. Sins, 
he acknowledges, are remitted as an act of mercy by oui 
heavenly Father. Then, does it not follow as a neces- 
sary conclusion, "wash away thy sins :r can not mean 
remission of sins? But this Mr. Lard saw he must make 



316 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

it mean, or it would not sustain his proposition. Accord* 
ing to Mr. Lard's own showing, "wash away thy sins" 
can not mean remission, yet he makes it mean that, and 
builds his argument upon it accordingly. Is not that 
sophistry? 

I feel now that I have taken this text, also, from Mr. 
Lard. It does not sustain his proposition. It is not 
against mine. 

§ 13. — mr. lard's fourth argument. 

" The passage on which we make our fourth argu- 
ment/' says Mr. Lard, " is the following: 'According to 
his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and 
renewing of the Holy Spirit/ — Titus iii : 5." 

Mr. Lard makes this passage give support to his prop- 
osition by making the phrase " washing of regenera- 
tion " signify baptism. And he makes it signify bap- 
tism, by converting the noun "regeneration" into an 
adjective. Thus: " Regenerating washing." He inter- 
prets the word " saved " here as he did the word " saved " 
in Mark xvi : 16, to signify simply " remission of sins." 
His words are : 

" But to what is reference made in the word l saved V 
or to what does it properly apply? First, it is clear that 
it refers to a salvation then past, then completed ; hence 
the apostle could speak of it as a matter of history. 
Second, that it is the salvation which occurred when Paul 
ceased to be 'foolish, disobedient, deceived,' etc. Third, 
that it is the salvation which depends on the renewing of 
the Holy Spirit, and is the first which happens after it. 
But what is this but the remission of sins ? This, then, 
we conclude, is the reference in the word, or the thing 
to which it applies. But this salvation depended not 
alone on the renewing of the Holy Spirit. For he saved 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 317 

us by the washing of regeneration, one thing, and the re- 
newing of the Holy Spirit, another. Hence, the washing 
of regeneration — or baptism — is essential to the remis- 
sion, of sins, or is one of the conditions on which it 
depends. " 

Pity that Mr. Lard did not begin his quotation at the 
commencement of the verse and continue it to the end 
of the sixth. It might have saved •him from the error 
which he has committed in making the washing of regen- 
eration mean baptism. Or did he intentionally garble 
the apostle? The entire passage reads: " Not by works 
of righteousness which we have done, but according to his 
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us abund- 
antly, through Jesus Christ our Savior" Paul here tells 
what God does not save us by, as well as by what he does 
save us. He does not save us by works of righteousness 
which we have done. Then he does not save us by bap- 
tism. It is a work of righteousness, (Matthew iii : 15 ; ) 
and it is done by us. 

Again, this washing of regeneration and renewing of 
the Holy Ghost, by which he does save us, he sheds on 
tis abundantly through Jesus Christ. But he does not 
shed baptism on us abundantly through Jesus Christ. 
Therefore the washing of regeneration does not mean 
baptism. The inquiry then arises, what does it mean ? 
Well, this inquiry I will now attempt to answer. I wish 
it, however, distinctly understood that this is on my part 
a gratuitous work. It is enough for me to show that the 
text does not testify for Mr. Lard. This I have done. 

Let it be remembered that there are two things which 
man needs in order to salvation. He needs to be cleansed 
from sin, and he needs a new heart. God saves him by 
doing both for him. These two works are so distinct 



318 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

that they can not be expressed by one and the same 
phrase. Hence they are distinctly marked and expressed 
in many passages of Scripture. I will cite a few : 

Ezekiel xxxvi : 25, 26: "Then will I sprinkle clean 
water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your 
filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A 
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I 
put within you : and I will take away the stony heart out 
of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh/' Here 
are the two great things God does for us in saving us. 
He cleanses us from our moral pollution, and gives us a 
new heart. 

Equally explicit are the specifications in the new cove- 
nant : 1st. " I will put my law in their inward parts, and 
write it in their hearts." 2d. " I will forgive their 
iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more." 
— Jer. xxxi: 33, 34. (Compare Hebrews viii: 10, 12; 
x: 16,17.) 

Now, these are the two things of which Paul speaks 
in Titus iii : 5. Our cleansing from sin he calls the 
"washing of regeneration." The giving of a new heart, 
or writing the law upon the heart, he calls the " renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost." 

When David prayed : " Wash me thoroughly from 
my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin," what else did 
he pray for but the washing of regeneration ? And 
when he prayed: "Create in me a clean heart, God; 
and renew a right spirit within me," what else did he 
pray for but the renewing of the Holy Ghost ? 

As I shall have more to say on this subject by and 
by, I shall add no more now. I claim that this passage, 
like the three already considered, yields Mr. Lard nc 
support, and is in no way antagonistic to my proposition. 
I pass on to Mr. Lard's fifth argument. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 319 

§ 14. — mr. lard's fifth argument. 

"Our fifth argument," says Mr. Lard, " is suggested 
by the following : ' Wherein [the ark] few, that is, eight 
souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even 
baptism, doth also now save us — not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to 
ward God:— I Peter iii : 20, 21." 

I feel that I have a right to complain of Mr. Lard's 
manner of quoting this text. He has destroyed the pa- 
renthesis there is in it, and left out a very important 
clause. Why he has done so is known to himself and 
the great Searcher of hearts. I am willing to extend to 
him that charity that thinks no evil. 

The text, as it really is in Peter, presents greater dif- 
ficulties in his way of making it favor his proposition, 
than it does as quoted at the head of his argument. 

Here it is as found in Peter : " Wherein few, that is, 
eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, 
even baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away 
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God,} by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This 
last clause, which Mr. Lard has entirely omitted, is, as 
we shall after a while see, very important in explaining 
the passage. 

But Mr. Lard finds it difficult to manage it even as it 
stands at the head of his argument. He says : " This 
passage, (so exceedingly obscure in the form here cited,) 
is susceptible of a much more intelligible rendering, thus : 
In ivhich (ark) a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by 
water, which also now saves us in its antitype baptism, 
which consists not in putting away fleshly impurity, but in 
seeking a good conscience in God." 

I think I may safely say that if the passage, as ren- 



320 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

dered in the common version, is " obscure," this trans- 
lation of Mr. Lard's makes obscurity more obscure. To 
what does the last " which " in his translation refer as its 
antecedent? Does it refer to u baptism?" If so, it 
makes baptism to " consist " in " seeking a good conscience 
in God." But does baptism consist in that? No; it 
consists in immersion. Well, does it refer to salvation? 
" Which salvation consists in seeking a good conscience 
in God." If so, it gives a strange definition of salvation. 
If salvation consists in seeking a good conscience in God, 
we had better never find it, because the moment we find 
it we lose our salvation ! 

But add the omitted clause and then see how his trans- 
lation will look. See if there is transparency about it. 
Rather see if there is not absurdity about it: u In which 
(ark) few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water, which 
also now saves us in its antitype, baptism, which consists 
not in putting away fleshly impurity, but in seeking a good 
conscience in God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

Now, reader, you can see what havoc has been done 
to the text by Mr. Lard. Peter tells us baptism saves 
us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This you will see 
by reading the passage without the parenthesis. But 
Mr. Lard makes him say baptism saves us — or rather the 
water in baptism saves us — without telling us how. He 
makes him omit this and give us in lieu of it that in 
which baptism consists. Never was a text more tortured. 
I think it will be a martyr before it will testify for Mr. 
Lard. 

But let us see how Mr. Lard argues the case after 
putting his witness to the torture and getting all he can 
out of him. He says : 

" The ground on which it (argument) rests, is asserted 
in the common version, namely : ' Baptism does also now 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 321 

save tis.' From this it is clear that there is a sense in 
which baptism saves us, or a salvation which depends on, 
or is effected in and by baptism. The question is : What 
is it, or in what does it consist? First, it can not be sal- 
vation in its most comprehensive sense, for it is limited 
to baptism. Second, it is not, be it what it may, a par- 
tial, but a complete salvation ; for baptism ' now saves 
us!' Hence, previously to baptism it does not exist: 
subsequently it does ; but without baptism it can not 
exist. What, now, is the safest and fairest method of 
ascertaining in what it consists, or, since the passage as- 
serts the fact that baptism saves us, how shall we determ- 
ine in what sense ? 

" Clearly, the best method of obtaining a correct reply 
to this question is, to ascertain in what sense the word 
saved is used when used in connection with baptism, or 
what is therein accomplished to which the word is appli- 
cable. ( Happily, this is an easy task : he that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved/ 'Arise and be baptized and 
wash away thy sins. 1 Jointly, these passages determine, 
definitely and conclusively, that the word ' saved,' when 
used in connection with baptism, is used to denote re- 
mission of sins ; and whatever meaning it certainly has 
in these passages, it certainly has in every other precisely 
similar passage, and, consequently, in the present one. 
Hence, baptism doth also now save us, because therein 
our sins are remitted. Of the truth of this little doubt 
can remain, when it is remembered that the same apostle 
on whose language we are now commenting, commanded 
an audience to repent and be baptized in order to the re- 
mission of sins. Hence, it may with great propriety be 
represented that baptism consists in seeking a conscience 
freed from sin." 

Reader, you see that in all the above not one word is 
U* 



322 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

said about u by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" No i 
baptism must not save us by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. It must save us, because it is u in order to 
the remission of sins !" That which baptism saves us by, 
according to Peter, is not that which baptism saves us 
by according to Mr. Lard. Mr. Lard, you need not try 
to gag Peter, nor to put words in his mouth he never 
uttered. He will speak out, and we will hear him for 
ourselves. 

1. In explaining this passage, the first thing I notice 
is, that it contains an analogy. Noah and his family were 
saved in the ark by water; and as the ark saved them 
by water, so baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. This is the analogy. 

2. Noah's salvation in the ark was a figure or type ; 
so baptism is a figure or type, therefore called a " like 
figure." 

These two facts are the key to let us into the meaning 
of the passage. 

But perhaps I had better prove the above statements 
before I proceed. Was Noah's salvation in the ark a 
figure? It certainly was or it could not have any other 
figure to resemble it. A figure can not be like that which 
is no figure. Hence the term "like figure/' (Gr. avntv 
Ttov.) Well, is baptism a figure ? It must be, or it would 
not be like the other figure. The Greek word used here 
implies two figures alike in their signification. It is not 
faithfully translated by our word antitype. This word 
signifies not the type, but that which is typified. This 
the Greek word does not signify. It is used in another 
place ; let us go to that and we will get some light. 
Hebrews ix : 24: " For Christ is not entered into tho 
holy places made with hands, which are the figures of 
the true." The Greek here is the same. Now, every 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 323 

one can see that here the word can not have the sense of 
11 antitype." For surely no one can suppose that the 
holy places made with hands are the antitype of heaven ! 
No : the idea, I take it, is this : God gave Moses the 
pattern of these holy places, in the Mount, and he made 
these holy places like them. Now, these were patterns 
of the heavenly things. So were these. They were, then, 
" like figures," i. e., figures of the same things. "Like 
figure," then, is a good translation. " Antitype" is not. 

Let us now proceed to inquire of what Noah's salva- 
tion in the ark is a figure ? It is a figure of the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ, and salvation through him. Paul 
says : " By faith Noah, being warned of God of things 
not seen as yet, moved with fear, 'prepared an ark to the 
saving of his house ; by the which he condemned the 
world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by 
faith."— Heb. xi : 7. We all know what this salvation 
is. We know what lies at its foundation, to-wit : the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Noah's 
faith looked through his temporal salvation in the ark 
to that spiritual salvation by faith in the blood of him 
who was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for 
our justification. 

Here, then, you see that of which Noah's salvation was 
typical. Well, baptism is typical of the same thing. 
Need I prove this? We need no other passage than the 
one found in Romans vi : 3-5: ""Know ye not that so 
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were bap- 
tized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him 
by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised up 
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been 
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be 
also in the likeness of his resurrection" The word ren- 



324 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

dered " likeness " here means image or similitude. See 
the following examples : Romans i : 23 : "Into an imagi 
made like to corruptible man," etc. Romans v: 14: 
"After the similitude of Adam's transgression," etc. 
Romans viii : 3: "God sending his own Son in the like- 
ness of sinful flesh," etc. Philippians ii : 7: " Was made 
in the likeness of men." 

Our descent into the waters of baptism implies our 
previous death to sin, so Christ's descent into the grave 
implied his previous death for sin ; therefore the former 
is in the likeness of the latter. 

Our rising again from the waters of baptism to walk 
in newness of life, is like our Savior's rising from the 
grave to live unto God. 

Now, then, we are prepared to understand Peter. Let 
me again quote the text, leaving out the parenthesis: 
" When once the long-suffering of God waited in the 
days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, 
that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure 
whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us, by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ." As Noah's entrance into 
the ark out of the old world typified Christ's passage out 
of this world into the grave, and as Noah's emergence 
from the ark into the new world typified Christ's emer- 
gence from the tomb to die no more, it presented to his 
mind the righteousness which is by faith, and he em- 
braced it. 

And so baptism, in its figurative significancy, pre- 
senting the same things to our faith, contributes to our 
salvation. It saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
i. c, it is a striking figure of our salvation by his resur- 
rection. 

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is so fundamental that 
everything else without it is nugatory and vain. " If 



JETER S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 325 

Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, our preaching is 
also vain, and ye are yet in your sins." Yea, more even, 
u they who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.'' 
We can not have the faith which saves unless we believe 
in our hearts that God hath raised Jesus from the 
dead. And whoever looks on the ordinance of baptism 
sees an imperishable symbolic monument of this great 
truth. I can not see the mystery of which some men 
speak, in this passage from Peter. 

But how about the parenthesis? Well, it sheds light 
also on the subject. A parenthesis is generally used for 
this purpose. As Peter had said baptism saves us, he 
thought it proper to explain. It saves, he tells us, not 
because it is a putting away the filth of the flesh, but 
because it is the answer of a good conscience toward 
God. The ' ; filth of the flesh " here refers to ceremonial 
defilements. Peter was writing to Jewish Christians, 
(strangers scattered abroad — 1 Peter i,) persons, there- 
fore, who were accustomed to such defilements, and who 
laid considerable stress upon them as prejudicial to their 
salvation ; hence, as baptism was, like their bathings 
under the law, an immersion in water, they were liable 
to mistake it as a ceremonial purification — a putting 
away of the filth of the flesh ; but Peter tells them it is 
not that, but it is the answer of a good conscience to- 
ward God. 

The word rendered " answer/' Mr. Lard renders 
" seeking. " For this rendering I have seen but one 
authority. That authority is Alexander Campbell! If 
baptism is the seeking of a good conscience, what kind 
of a conscience does the subject have be/ore he is bap- 
tized? I read in the Bible of a seared conscience, (1 
Tim. iv: 2;) and a defiled conscience, (Titus i: 15;) and 
an evil conscience, (Heb. x: 22 ;) and a good conscience, 



326 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

(1 Tim. i : 5.) Now, if the candidate for baptism has not 
this good conscience when he applies for the ordinance, 
what kind of a conscience has he ? It is evident that, 
according to Mr. Lard, he has not a good conscience, or 
he would not come seeking one. 

I suppose Mr. Lard, like Mr. Campbell, thinks : "And 
to him that made the washing of clay from the eyes, the 
washing away of blindness, it is competent to make the 
immersion of the body in water efficacious to the wash- 
ing away of sin from the conscience. 11 And thus he makes 
Peter to say : " Immersion saves us, not by cleansing the 
body from its filth, but the conscience from its guilt." — 
Christianity Restored, p. 221. But Peter never said such 
a thing in all his life. According to Mr. Lard and Mr. 
Campbell, Peter's parenthesis ought to read: "Not the 
putting away the filth of the flesh, but the putting away 
filth from the conscience/' But Peter has not said this, 
and had he said it, he would have contradicted Paul : for 
Paul tells us, the blood of Christ, not baptism, purges the 
conscience from dead works. 

But what does Mr. Lard say in justification of " seek- 
ing " as a translation of frtspwr^a? He says: "First, 
there is a necessity for it." No doubt of it! It would 
be ruinous to Mr. Lard's proposition to allow the peni- 
tent believer to have a good conscience before he goes 
into the water! But he continues: "For the passage, 
as it stands in the common version, conveys no intelli- 
gible meaning whatever ; indeed, it is simply a jumble of 
words without meaning/' Why did he not add, "to a 
Campbellite mind?" To me it is most intelligible, and 
conveys a very important meaning, which I will give pres- 
ently. Mr. Lard continues: "Second. It agrees better 
with the sense of the original term." This is unsupported 
assertion. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 327 

I have before me five lexicons. The following are 
their definitions : 

1. Liddell and Scott's Lexicon: " Erfspwr^tta, a ques- 
tion." 

2. Donegan's : " Ert^pur^.tta, a question ; interrogation.' 1 

3. Groves': " Erffpwr^ia, a question ; inquiry; a requi- 
sition ; demand ; an answer or reply agreeing to the 
demand; an engagement ; undertaking." 

4. Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament: " Erf* pui^a, 
a question ; inquiry. In N. T. spoken of a question put 
to a convert in baptism, or rather of the whole process 
of question and answer, i. e., by implication, examination, 
profession." 

5. Greenfield's Lexicon of the New Testament: " Erfspw- 
t^ua, an interrogation ; question. In N. T., answer, 
promise, engagement, profession. — 1 Peter iii: 21." 

Now. reader, are we not prepared to see the meaning 
of the apostle ? Baptism is an ordinance in which cer- 
tain obligations are assumed by the baptized. We have 
been buried with Christ by baptism into death, that, like 
as he was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also shoidd icalk in newness of life. And now, 
this question comes up before the mind of the believer : 
Will you, by being " baptized into Christ" — " into his 
death," oblige yourself to walk in newness of life?" 
Well, he, having a "good conscience toward God," a 
conscience " purged from dead works to serve the living 
God," answers, " I will." Baptism, then, is, to him, an 
act by which he responds to the Divine claims, engages 
to lead a new life, professes a good conscience toward 
God. Baptism, then, according to Peter, saves us in 
figure, because it is, like Noah's salvation in the ark, 
typical of that which saves, to-wit : the death, burial, and 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Secondly, because it is the 



328 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

answer, i. e., the engagement and profession of a good con," 
science toward, God. 

It is worthy of remark, here, that this is, perhaps, the 
reason why baptism is to be performed but once, and 
that at the very beginning of the Christian life, because, 
like the oath of allegiance, its obligations cover the whole 
life. Every one who, with a good conscience, takes upon 
him the sacred rite, ever after feels its obligations fresh 
upon him. His baptism will ever furnish him a reason 
and a motive to abstain from all appearance of evil, and 
to maintain a patient continuance in well-doing, while he 
seeks for glory, and honor, and immortality in the hope 
of eternal life. 

In conclusion, I feel that I am authorized to say that 
this passage, like all its predecessors, gives no support 
to Mr. Lard's position, and it offers no objection to 
mine. 

§ 15. MR. lard's sixth argument. 

" The passage," says Mr. Lard, " on which we base 
our sixth argument is this : ' Verily, verily, 1 say unto thee. 
Except a man he bom of water and of the Spirit, he can 
not enter into the kingdom of God. 1 — John iii : 5." 

With Mr. Lard's first paragraph I fully agree. It is 
this : " This passage we regard as presenting us with a 
complete view of the new birth — as informing us in what 
it consists, or what facts constitute it. And whenever 
the subject of regeneration is spoken of, we wish it to be 
distinctly understood that the present passage contains 
our conception of it. In declaring, that s except a man 
be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God/ the 
Savior merely propounds the doctrine of the new birth 
generally, in a statement of the necessity of it. But in 
the present passage he states definitely in what the new 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 3211 

birth consists, reiterating the necessity of it. The former 
passage propounds the doctrine, the latter passage ex 
plains it. That to be born again is to be born of water 
and of the Spirit, does not admit of a doubt/' 

But with the following I as fully disagree : " The 
passage was intended, when spoken, to have not a present, 
but a prospective bearing" My reason for disagreeing I 
will give presently. 

I wish now to let the reader know how Mr. Lard 
presses this text into his service. He understands 
"born of water " to mean baptism. He understands 
" born of the Spirit," to mean " begotten " of, or by, the 
Spirit. He then contends that a man must be begotten 
by the Spirit and born of water, or be baptized in order 
to be born again and enter the kingdom of God or the 
reign of favor, where the remission of sins, the gift of 
the Holy Spirit, etc., etc., are to be obtained and enjoyed. 

After much explanation and criticism, and twisting 
and turning, to get the passage fixed up to his notion, he 
says : " It is now easy to complete our argument. There 
are but two kingdoms on earth in which men exist : the 
kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. These 
kingdoms are separated from each other by one and the 
same line. All on this side are saints, all on that sin- 
ners ; and all are on that side until born of water and 
of the Spirit : then all thus born are on this. We can 
no more conceive of a saint in the kingdom of Satan, 
than we can of a sinner in the kingdom of God; nor can 
we any more conceive of a saint without his being born 
of water and of the Spirit, than we can of a sinner who 
is. The instant in which a man's sins are forgiven he 
passes from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of 
God. But he passes from the kingdom of Satan into the 
kingdom of God the instant in which he is born of water 



330 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

and of the Spirit. Hence, in that instant, his sins are 
forgiven. 

" But let us suppose a part of this to be denied. Let 
us suppose it to be maintained that a man, though born 
of water and of the Spirit, might still be in the kingdom 
of Satan. What is true of one man in this respect 
might certainly be true of all. Hence all men, though 
born again, might still be in the kingdom, and under the 
dominion, of Satan/' 

Clearly, this is false. 

" From all of which we conclude that a man's sins are 
remitted the instant in which he is born of water and of 
the Spirit, or, inverting the expressions, the instant in 
which, being begotten by the Spirit, he is immersed." 

All that is wanting to overthrow this argument and 
conclusion of Mr. Lard's, is to give a just exposition of 
the text on which they are founded. This I shall now 
attempt to do. 

As before remarked, I agree with the sentiments uttered 
by Mr. Lard in his first paragraph. In the third verse, 
our Savior says : " Except a man be born again, he can 
not see the kingdom of God." At this, Nicodemus is 
surprised, and misapprehending its meaning, he asks : 
"How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter 
the second time into his mother's womb and be born ?" 
Now, all that follows up to the ninth verse is an answer 
to these questions, and of course contains an explanation 
of that which gave rise to them. 

The fifth verse is therefore exegetical of the third. The 
Savior's return to the first expression confirms this view: 
" Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born 
of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the king- 
dom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh j 
and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. Marvel 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. 331 

not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.''' " Born 
again/' therefore, states the doctrine ; born of water and 
of the Spirit explains it. So far, Mr. Lard and I are 
agreed. But now we part. 

If Mr. Lard's view of the meaning of the passage be 
correct, the explanation was just as great a puzzle to Xic- 
odemus, and needed as much explanation as that which 
was explained. Now, I hold it as self-evident that Jesus 
could not have meant baptism by " born of water/' nor 
could he have intended a ; - prospective" and not a pres- 
ent application of what he said, from the fact that he teas 
giving an explanation. 

1. Let us inquire who was Jesus Christ? The omniscient 
Prophet — the true Light which lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world. He, therefore, had the wisdom to 
discern the cause of the ignorance of Xicodemus, and to 
employ the best means for its removal. But was it better 
calculated to remove his ignorance to say " born of water/' 
than to say i: be baptized/' if he meant be baptized? 
Had Xicodemus any knowledge of baptism by virtue of 
which he could infer it from this phrase ? I presume not. 
But, then, if Jesus spoke prospectively ^ why did he use the 
present tense ? " Except a man be born again, he cannot 
see the kingdom of God/' " Yerily, verily, I say unto 
thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 

2. Who was Nicodemus ? A man of the Pharisees, a 
ruler or teacher of the Jews. And could the Savior pre- 
sume that he would understand his explanation if he 
meant what Mr. Lard says he did ? Most surely not. 
Now, an explanation which the party, needing it, cannot, 
from the nature of the case, understand, is no explana- 
tion at all. I have too much regard for both the wisdom 
and benevolence of the Savior to believe that he gave 



332 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

Nicodemus such an explanation as Mr. Lard says he 
did. 

3. There is another fact which makes me reject Mr. 
Lard's view of this subject. It is this : After the expla- 
nation, Nicodemus asked : " How can these things be?" 
And Jesus answered : " Art thou a master of Israel and 
Jcnowest not these things?" This reply of the Savior 
implies a reflection upon Nicodemus for his igno- 
rance. Now, was this reflection deserved? Was it just? 
It evidently was, for Jesus gave it. He will enst no 
undeserved, unjust reflection. But if he meant what 
Mr. Lard says he did, the reflection was undeserved and 
unjust. 

I hold, then, that the Savior's explanation was an ex- 
planation to Nicodemus; one which he, as a master of 
Israel, ought to have understood, and, hence, his igno- 
rance was censurable. Therefore it has been mistaken by 
Mr. Lard. 

There is to my mind one more objection to Mr. Lard's 
view, which I regard as insuperable. It is this : If his 
view is correct, there never was a new birth } or such a 
thing as one's being born again before the day of Pente- 
cost! Can this be true ? If true, how is it that we read 
in John i: 12, 13: "But as many as received him, to 
them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to 
them that believe on his name : which were (in the past 
tense) born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, 
nor of the will of man, but of God?" Remember, this 
was be/ore Pentecost. 

And how is it that the pious in all ages have been 
called the sons or children of God ? Could they be 
children of God without being born of him ? I think 
not. 

I am now prepared to explain the text. The follow- 



Jeter's campbellism exposed. ' 333 

ing considerations furnish the key by which I interpret 
it: 

1. Born of water and of the Spirit, is an explanation 
of born again. 

2. It was given by the Savior to Nicodemus, a Phari- 
see, a ruler of the Jews, or master, or teacher, of Israel. 

3. It was therefore an explanation adapted to him as 
such, which he ought to have understood. 

4. It was an explanation, therefore, which he ought to 
have learned and understood from his sources of inform- 
ation. 

5. But his sources of information were the writings of 
Moses and the prophets. 

6. Hence, to them we must go to learn its meaning. 
Well, as I have shown already, (see what I have said 

on Titus iii : 5,) God, in saving us, does two things for 
us : he gives us a new heart, and he cleanses us from sin. 
Now, these two things are to be found both in the writ- 
ings of Moses and the prophets. They are set forth in 
types and promises, and especially in the new covenant. 
Circumcision was typical of a change of heart correspond- 
ing to the birth of the Spirit. The following passages 
prove this: Deuteronomy x: 16: "Circumcise there- 
fore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff- 
necked/' Deuteronomy xxx : 6 : " And the Lord thy 
God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, 
to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
thy soul, that thou mayest live." 

Are not these passages plain ? But see also Jeremiah 
iv : 4 : "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take 
away the foreskins of your heart" See also Jeremiah 
ix : 26; Leviticus xxvi : 41 ; Ezekiel xliv : 7. 

It is evident that the apostle Paul understood circum- 
cision as typical of a change of heart. Hear him : "He 



334 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that 
circumcision, which is outward in the flesh : but he is a 
Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of 
the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise 
is not of men, but of God." — Rom. ii : 28, 29. Hence, 
he tells his Philippian brethren that they " are the cir- 
cumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice 
in Christ. Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" — 
Phil, iii : 3. Hence, also, he tells us that saints "are 
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, 
in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the 
circumcision of Christ." — Col. ii : 11. 

Not only is a change of heart thus set forth in type, 
but our cleansing from sin is also thus set forth. All 
the ceremonial washings under the law were typical of 
our moral cleansing from the pollution of sin, particu- 
larly that connected with the ashes of the red heifer. — 
Num. xix : 19. This Paul teaches us in Hebrew ix : 
13, 14 : " For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the 
ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to 
the purifying of the flesh : how much more shall the 
blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered 
himself without spot to God, purge (or cleanse*) your 
conscience from dead works to serve the living God." 

The prayer of David in the fifty-first psalm plainly 
recognizes these two ideas : " Wash me thoroughly from 
mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin." Again: 
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : ivash me, 
and I shall be whiter than snow." This is one idea. 
u Create in me a clean heart, God; and renew a right 



* The word rendered "purge" is Kadapi^o, rendered elsewhere in 
the New Testament twenty-three times " cleanse," and three times 
11 purify." Compare 1 John i : 7. 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 335 

spirit within me." This is the other idea. Here is 
a plain exposition of " born of water and of the 
Spirit.'' 

The new covenant, as I have already said, is clearly 
expressive of these two ideas. I need not, however, re- 
peat here what I have already said upon it. Nor need I 
again refer the reader to Ezekiel xxxvi : 25, 26. I have 
said enough. I will only add that there is one remarka- 
ble fact which may not have arrested the attention of the 
reader, which, I think, strengthens, if that were possible, 
the view I have here given. It is this : throughout the 
New Testament, a change of heart is always ascribed to 
the Holy Spirit, and never to the blood of Christ; while, 
on the other hand, the cleansing of the soul from sin is 
always ascribed to the blood of Christ, and never to the 
Holy Spirit. 

Now, as we are both cleansed from sin and renewed in 
the spirit of our minds, and as these are effected by two 
distinct causes, the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit, 
two expressions were needful to set them forth. They 
are comprehended in u born again," but expressed in 
il born of water and of the Spirit." It does seem to me 
that there can be no doubt of the correctness of this 
view, when all that I have said, in connection with that of 
type, and promise, and prophecy, and the new covenant, 
is duly considered, and the occasion, the Teacher, and 
the pupil, are taken into the account. A man is born 
again when his heart is circumcised, and his conscience 
purged from dead works. A man is born again when 
God washes him thoroughly from his iniquity, and 
cleanses him from his sin ; and creates within him a 
clean heart, and renews within him a right spirit. A 
man is born again when God writes his law upon his 
heart, and forgives his sins, and remembers iniquity 



336 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

against him no more. And when God does these thing3 
for a man, he is born of water and of the Spirit. 

And now I claim that I have taken this text also from 
Mr. Lard. It gives his proposition no support; it offers 
no resistance to mine. 

§ 16. — mr. lard's seventh argument. 

"Our seventh argument," says Mr. Lard, " is sug- 
gested by the following : ' Christ also loved the Church, and 
gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it 
with the xoashing of water hy the ivord.' — Eph. v : 25, 26." 

This text, like some others which we have already con- 
sidered, just as it stands, does not suit Mr. Lard. He 
sees that the " washing with water " is here said to be 
hy the word. This he must change. Hence he says: 
" That the phrase, ' hy the word] is, in construing the 
passage, to be joined with the verb sanctify, is so obvi- 
ously true, that nothing need be urged in its defense; 
the proper collocation of the words being: Christ also 
loved the Church, and gave himself for it; that, having 
cleansed it by the washing of water, he might sanctify it 
by the word." 

In confirmation of this, he quotes the Savior's prayer: 
u Sanctify them through thy truth ; thy word is truth." 
— John xvii : 17. 

In condemnation of it, why did he not quote : " Now 
ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto 
you?" — John xv : 3. And why did he not quote the 
words of Peter : " Seeing ye have purified (or cleansed) 
your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit?" — 
1 Peter i : 22. 

These quotations, I presume, were not relevant ! 

After thus changing the translation without any au- 
thority, and without proof, so as to make it suit his pur- 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 337 

pose, Mr. Lard presses it into his service in the following 
manner : 

" But what signifies the expression, cleansed it by the 
washing of water ? This question can be best answered, 
perhaps, by determining separately the signification of 
the clauses washing of water and cleansed. 

" First, then, what signifies the clause icashing of 
water? If, as was urged in the preceding section, there 
is any confidence to be reposed in the learning and dis- 
crimination of the first class of critics, and that, too, in 
a case in which no interested motives can be presumed to 
have swayed their judgments, this question is settled. 
The clause signifies baptism. True, Mr. Jeter feigns to 
think its import doubtful, but why, none can mistake. 
He is pledged to oppose, right or wrong, whatever favors 
us ; hence, the more irrefragable our proof, the more 
vehement his denial. 

" That the term tcater, or, more correctly, the water, as 
it is in the original, has here its hard Saxon meaning, is 
not a disputable point. Joining to this word washing, 
or, better still, the washing, thereby making the washing 
of or in the wafer, or the water in which the Church (the 
members of it) has been washed, can any one, whose soul 
is not steeped in error, be in doubt as to what the apostle 
means. 

" There is but one rite under Christ to which water is 
absolutely, in all cases, essential, and to which all who 
are members of his Church have submitted. That rite is 
baptism. Here, however, water is present — water in 
which the Church is washed ; hence, since the Church 
comes in contact with water in no rite but baptism, bap- 
tism is, or rather, of necessity, must be, what the apostle 
refers to when he says, the icashing of icater. 

c - Second. But what signifies the term cleansed? We 
15 



338 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

can readily understand why the expression, washing of 
water, should have suggested it; hut the question is. 
What does it mean ? — a question which we think is not 
difficult to answer. In the original, both the verb and 
its derivatives signify to cleanse or purify generally. 
But the present is not a general but a special cleansing, 
— a cleansing limited to persons, and effected in the wash- 
ing of icater. Now, in what special sense are persons 
cleansed in the washing of water? Clearly, they are not 
therein cleansed from leprosy; neither, therein, is any 
error corrected or vice reformed. They arc therein 
cleansed from sin. 'Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins. 7 ' lie pent, and be baptized, in order to the 
remission of sins' These passages determine most con- 
clusively in what sense a person is cleansed in the wash- 
ing of water. Three times, certainly, in the New Testa- 
ment, is the term cleansing, either as a verb or noun, 
employed to express a cleansing from sin. A cleansing 
from sin, then, is, we conclude, precisely what is effected 
in the washing of watex; 11 

Here, reader, is Mr. Lard's conclusion fully drawn. 
According to him, the Church (or members of it) is 
cleansed, that is, pardoned, by baptism, and afterward 
sanctified by the word, and thus fitted for final present- 
ation to Christ, a glorious Church — holy, and without 
blemish. Are you prepared to admit his conclusion ? I 
am not, for the following reasons : 

1. The word ChurcJt. here, is to be taken in its largest 
sense as embracing all the saved. It comprehends the 
many who, at last, shall come from the East and from 
the West, from the North and from the South, and sit 
down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom 
of God. It looks back to prophets and patriarchs. It 
crosses the flood, and gathers into its meaning the ante- 



JETER'S CAMPBELLISM EXPOSED. 33£ 

diluvian saints. Tfc then goes forward, and comprehends 
the latest convert to Christ and his cause. All this vast 
company Christ loved, and gave himself for; all this vast 
company he will sanctify and cleanse, and finally pre- 
sent to himself, a glorious Church, without spot or blem- 
ish. 

But if Mr. Lard's exposition be true, no saint who 
lived before Pentecost will be included in this glorious 
Church : or, if included, he will not have been cleansed 
w T ith this washing of water ! 

2. As all the saved are embraced within the meaning 
of the term Church, as here used, and as all are sanc- 
tified and cleansed in the same way, and by the same 
process, baptism can not be meant, because a large pro- 
portion of those included were never baptized. 

Then the inquiry comes up, What is meant by this 
washing of water by the icord? The following passages 
of Scripture a-nswer this question : 

1. Revelation vii : 14: "And he said to me, These are 
they which came out of great tribulation, and have 
washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of 
the Lamb." 

Here, the hundred and forty and four thousand sealed 
from among the twelve tribes are referred to. These 
will compose a part of the Church of which Paul speaks. 
Well, in the laver in which these have washed their 
robes, all other members of this Church will have washed 
theirs. 

That laver is here shown to be the blood of Christ, not 
baptism. 

2. Zechariah xiii : 1 : " In that clay there shall be a 
fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhab- 
itants of Jerusalem for sin and for an cleanness.'" 

In this prophecy, w T e M behold the Lamb of God which 



340 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD's REVIEW OF 

taketh away the sin of the world." This fountain was 
opened in his blessed side. The blood and water which 
flowed from his cleft heart form the element which 
cleanses from sin. In this fountain we wash and are 
clean. 

The pious Cowper proved himself a theologian as well 
as a poet when he wrote : 

"There is a fountain tilled with blood, 
Drawn from Immannel's veins, 
And sinners plunged beneath that flood 
Lose all their guilty stains." 

This fountain Christ opened for all his Church: in it 
all bathe, and by it all are cleansed from sin. " Unto 
him that loved us and wanked us from our sins in his own 
blood,' 1 will be the universal song of the glorified Church, 
without a discord, or jar, or dissenting voice. 

Reader, need I multiply quotations? Read for your- 
self the following : Isaiah iv : 4 ; Jeremiah xxxiii : 8 ; 
Ezekiel xxxvii : 23 ; John xiii : 8-10 ; 1 John i : 7. 

I will, however, give the reader one more passage anal- 
ogous to the one we arc considering, and to which, it is not 
improbable, Paul had reference. It is found in Ezekiel 
xvi : 3-14 inclusive. Here God first reminds Israel of 
their humble origin, of their pitiable condition in their 
infancy, and of their pollution. Second, he tells them 
of his love and compassion for them, and the great bene- 
fits he had conferred upon them, and of their beauty and 
renown in consequence. 

In this description he uses the following language : 
" Xow when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, be- 
hold, thy time was the time of love ; and I spread my skirt 
over thee, and covered thy nakedness : yea, I sware unto 
thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 34.1 

Lord God, and thou becamest mine. Then washed 1 thee. 
with water ; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from 
thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also 
with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, 
and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered 
thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments," 
etc., etc. 

All this, of course, is highly figurative. Yet it con- 
tains the very ideas which Paul expresses. God is speak- 
ing of Israel under the similitude of a polluted, neglected 
infant, upon whom he had compassion, and took and 
washed, and clothed, and ornamented, and married, and 
made glorious. So here Paul represents the Church as 
the bride of Christ, upon whom he placed his love. He 
finds her first polluted, but he gives himself for her that 
he may sanctify and cleanse her. This he does by his 
blood and spirit. These are the efficient causes. His 
blood cleanses from all sin. His spirit changes and 
sanctifies the heart. All this, however, is done by means 
of the word. It may be said of the whole Church as of 
the Corinthian : " But ye are washed, but ye are sancti- 
fied, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
and by the Spirit of our God." — 1 Cor. vi : 11. 

I have}. however, no objection to the idea that baptism 
is alluded to, as it does in symbol what the blood of Christ 
does in fact. 

Now, reader, I have stated to you plainly my view of 
this passage in connection with my objections to that 
given by Mr. Lard, and it is for you to judge between 
us. I feel confident that you will say that I have shown 
Mr. Lard's view to be incorrect, and proved that this text 
also yields his proposition no support, and offers no oppo« 
fiition to mine. 



342 AN EXAMINATION OF LARDS ftEVTEW OF 

§ 17. — MR. lard's EIGHTH ARGUMENT. 

"Our eighth argument/' says Mr. Lard, "is derived 
from the following: c For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither 
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there in 
neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus. And if ye be Christ 's, then are ye Abraham* s seed, 
and heirs according to the promise.' " 

Mr. Lard attempts to make this text yield him sup- 
port in the following manner: "Certainly the expres 
sion ' in Christ' is not to be taken literally ; and yet there 
can exist little or no doubt as to its import or the relation 
which it expresses. Now, we maintain that the very fact 
that we enter into Christ by baptism, or into the relation 
which this language expresses, involves the connection 
between baptism and the remission of sins for which we 
contend. 

"That the instant in which a person becomes an ' heir 
according to the promise,' he becomes a Christian, or is 
forgiven, can hardly be supposed to admit of argument. 
To suppose a person an l heir, 1 and yet not forgiven, or 
forgiven and yet not an heir, involves a contradiction, if 
not in words, at least in fact. But when do we become 
heirs? The reply is, When we become Abraham's chil- 
dren, not according to the flesh, certainly, but when we 
are constituted such. But when do we become Abra- 
ham's children ? Certainly when we become Christ's ; 
and we become Christ's when in him, and not before. 
For, says the apostle, you are all one in Christ, and if 
Christ's, (which you are if in him,) then are you Abra- 
ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. 

"Now, w T hat persons alone are in Christ? As many, 
is the reply, as have been baptized into Christ, and not 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 313 

one more. If, now, none out of Christ are forgiven, (and 
let him who so affirms prove it,) and if all in him are, 
then the very act of entering into him makes the differ- 
ence between the forgiven and the unforgiven person. 
If there is any value in implication, this is conclusive." 

Xow, the hinge upon which Mr. Lard's argument here 
turns, is this : that no man can be in Christ without be- 
ing baptized into him. Hence, no man can be pardoned 
without baptism, because out of Christ there is no pardon. 
I admit that out of Christ there is no pardon : but I deny 
that no man can be in Christ without baptism. It is not 
my business to prove a negative. Still I will do it, and 
thus destroy his argument. I have already explained 
what is meant by being baptized into Christ. (See p. 
306, 307.) Upon this subject I shall add nothing. 

That a man can be in Christ without baptism, the fol- 
lowing passages prove : 

1. Philippians iii : 8, 9:, " Yea doubtless, and I count 
all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge 
of Christ Jesus my Lord : for whom I have suffered the 
loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I 
may win Christ, and he found in him, not having mine 
own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which 
is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which 
is of God by faith." Now, reader, does not Paul here 
plainly show that to ho, found, in Christ one must have 
the righteousness of God, which is by faith? 

The relation expressed by in Christ, is a vital one, such 
as exists between a vine and its branches. Without this 
-union with Christ we have no life, no holiness, no 
strength. If, then, we can be alive without baptism, we 
can be in Christ without baptism. If we can be pure in 
heart, or holy, without baptism, we can be in Christ with- 
out baptism. 



344 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW OF 

2. John xv : 4: " As the branch can not bear fruit of 
itself, except it abide in the vine : no more can ye, except 
ye abide in me." This declaration of the Savior shows, 
that out of him there is no fruit-bearing. Then, there 
is no fruit bearing without baptism. Does this conclu- 
sion accord with facts? If so, how will you account for 
the many, many examples of eminent piety found among 
Pedobaptists? Now, we must either deny Mr. Lard's 
view, or deny that there can be any Pedobaptist piety, or 
admit their baptism. That they are baptized we can not 
admit ; that they, or at least many of them, are pious, 
eminently pious, we can not deny. Then the only alter- 
native left us, is to conclude that a man can be in Christ 
without baptism. 

From the foregoing considerations, I feel authorized to 
say of this text as I have said of all its predecessors : it 
gives Mr. Lard's proposition no support; and oifers no 
opposition to mine. 

MR. LARD'S NINTH AND LAST ARGUMENT. 

"As the basis of our ninth and last argument," says 
Mr. Lard, " we cite the following : 'And he said, Sirs, 
what must I do to he saved? And they said, Believe on 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt he saved. 1 " 

I know the reader will be curious to know how Mr. 
Lard gets proof of his proposition out of this text. He 
gets no proof out of it. He only labors to show that it 
is not against him. I would admit that, if he had proved 
his proposition by other portions of the word of God, 
this passage would not disprove it. But I have shown 
that all his proof-texts have failed to yield him any proof. 
Hence, this text is against him. 

Here, then, I close. I wish it distinctly understood that 
I do not oppose baptism as a duty enjoined upon all pen 



jeter's campbellism exposed. 845 

itent believers. I only oppose the position assigned it 
by Mr. Lard and the current reformation. They exalt 
it to a position nowhere assigned it in the Bible. It is 
their spiritual panacea. Everything else without it is as 
nothing. Taking the whole of what Mr. Lard has said 
together, and what can one have without baptism. With- 
out it he can not be born again ; without it he can not 
be in Christ; without it his sins can not be remitted; 
without it he can not have a good conscience ; without 
it he can not be cleansed ; without it he can not be 
saved ! 

Now, let any one believe all this, and is he not in dan- 
ger of placing all his hopes of salvation on baptism ? 
Talk to him about faith, and repentance, and the blood 
of Christ, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, and he will 
reply, What are all these without baptism ? His faith 
and his repentance avail him nothing until he goes into 
the water. And the blood, and righteousness, and inter- 
cession of Jesus avail him nothing until he is baptized. 
But let him be baptized, and he is assured of everything. 
Then he is in Christ; then he is born again; then he 
is pardoned; then he is an heir of God; then he is 
washed from his sins; then he has a good conscience; 
then he has the aids of the Spirit; then, in a word, 
he is a new creature, and thoroughly furnished unto 
every good work. 

Bather let the sinner follow the teachings of Jesus. 
Bepent and believe the Gospel. Come back to God, as 
the prodigal came to his father; look to the blood of 
Christ as the only propitiation, and expect salvation on 
the ground of faith in him. Let him gladly receive the 
truth, have peace with God through Jesus, have his soul 
filled with love to God and to his people, and be assured 
that he has passed from death unto life, and then let hhr 
15* 



346 AN EXAMINATION OF LARD'S REVIEW. 

say: "See! here is water; what doth hinder me from 
being baptized." 

Coming to the ordinance thus, he can honestly and in- 
telligibly make the profession it requires. With an 
approving conscience he can declare that he is dead to 
sin and alive to God. That his faith is in the Father, and 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. With a free, good will, 
can he take the yoke of Christ upon him, and vow to be 
his. and pledge himself to walk in newness of life. And 
then he can pass on through life doing the will of God 
from the heart, and looking forward for a blessed immor- 
tality, knowing in whom he has believed, and enjoying 
the confident persuasion that he is able to keep that 
which he has committed to him. 

And now, reader, I commend you to the mercy and 
grace of God, which will preserve you from the path of 
error, keep you from falling, and at last present you 
blameless before the throne. 

That this may be the lot of the writer, and all who 
read what is written, is the prayer of 

Yours, to serve in Jesus Christ, 

Amen. 



APPENDIX. 



UPON reflection, I have thought that I might do tha 
reader a service by submitting .to him, in a few brief 
remarks, my views upon the design of Christian baptism. 
My views on this subject might be gathered by a careful 
hand, from what I have, from time to time, said in my 
replies to Mir. Lard's arguments : but they might escape 
the most of my readers. I will, therefore, embody them 
here. 

1. I look upon baptism as commemorative of the burial 
and resurrection of Jesus. 

Nearly all the ordinances of God are of this character. 
Circumcision is, I believe, an exception. They are de- 
signed to commemorate some mighty event which has 
transpired in his Divine interposition in behalf of his 
people. 

The Passover was commemorative of Israel's deliver- 
ance from their thralldom in Egypt. 

The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, was* commemorative 
of the giving of the law at Sinai, which took place seven 
weeks after the former occurrence. 

The Feast of Purini was commemorative of the deliv- 
erance of the Jews from the destruction plotted against 
them by Haman in the days of Esther. 

And so the Lord's Supper is commemorative of the 
death of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

(347) 



348 APPENDIX. 

But now, have we no commemorative lite for his burial 
and resurrection ? We have not, unless baptism is that 
rite. 

Now, I can not believe that God would be careful tc 
provide for the commemoration of those other events, and 
then fail to make any such provision for this. It may 
be said that in comparison with this the rest are quite 
insignificant. The resurrection of Christ is the mightiest 
event that has ever occurred. It is the basis of the Chris- 
tian religion. It is the foundation of all our hopes. 
Remove it, and the whole structure of Christianity tum- 
bles into ruins. 

A fact, then, so grand, of such magnitude, and of such 
importance, could not be allowed to go without commem- 
oration. xVnd can not that eye of faith that sees the 
broken body of Jesus in the broken loaf — that sees the 
warm blood flowing from his cleft side in the flowing 
wine, see the buried Savior in the immersion of one dead 
to sin ; and can it not see him risen in the emersion that 
follows ? 

And what strengthens this thought is, the very exist- 
ence of the command to baptize proves the resurrection 
of Jesus. It was he that said : " Go, teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But he said this after his 
resurrection. As he had not said it before, he had to 
arise from the dead to say it. And I state it with all 
possible emphasis, that the existence of this command can 
not he accounted for by any one icho denies the resurrection 
of Jesus. Had Jesus given this command before his 
death, no one afterward would have felt its obligation. 
His failure to rise again would have proved him an 
impostor, and the command would have perished with 
him. 



APPENDIX. 349 

Well, none after his death would have given it. The 
Jews would not. They did not want all nations taught 
ind baptized in the name of him whom they had rejected 
and crucified. Or, if it were possible to suppose such 
an incongruous idea, who could have given it authority 
with Christians? Would Christians obey the command 
of the Jews to preach and baptize in all the world at the 
sacrifice of their own lives, and preach an impostor at 
that ? 

Well, can we conjecture that Christians would impose 
upon themselves so onerous a task, for which they could 
expect no reward in earth or heaven, when, by advo- 
cating the claims of an impostor, they sacrificed both 
worlds? Never! no, never! Then the very existence 
of the command proves the resurrection of Jesus. How 
fit, then, that the ordinance should commemorate what it 
thus proves. 

2. The ordinance of baptism, like some of the other 
ordinances to which we have alluded, while it commemo- 
rates, also typifies and promises. The Passover, while it 
commemorated the deliverance of Israel, typified Christ, 
our passover, who has been sacrificed for us.— 1 Cor. v: 7. 
It pointed forward to him as the Lamb of God, who 
should take away the sin of the world. — John i : 29. So 
baptism, while it commemorates the burial and resurrec- 
tion of Jesus, typifies and pledges our resurrection from 
the grave. This I take to be the import of 1 Corinthians 
xv : 29: " Else what shall they do, which are baptized for 
the dead, if the dead rise not at all f why are they then 
baptized for the deadV\ 

Remember, in this chapter the apostle labors to prove the 
resurrection from the dead — an event denied by some in 
the Corinthian Church. He uses, first, the argument drawn 



350 APPENDIX. 

from the acknowledged resurrection of Christ. These 
two events, according to Paul, were associated together 
as cause and effect, and they stood or fell together. The 
one could not be denied without the other being denied. 
He draws, secondly, an argument from baptism. As if 
he had said : " Your denial of the resurrection, in effect, 
is a denial of the resurrection of Christ. Then you 
make baptism a ridiculous farce. You have commemo- 
rated an event that never occurred. You have been bap- 
tized on account of one that still sleeps in the grave. 
And if the dead rise not at all, as you say, your baptism 
has no meaning : it is a resurrection in type. But what 
signifies a type if there be no antitype ?" 

And, now, how important does baptism appear under 
this view ? Every newly converted person is required in 
this rite to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus. 
He believes in his heart that God has raised Christ from 
the dead, (Rom. x : 9 ; ) and now he declares his faith in 
action. And when he remembers that God never gives. 
a pledge he does not redeem, how delightfully should he 
accept of this pledge. Standing in' the water, w T ith his 
soul full of faith in the resurrection of Jesus and, of 
hope of his own future resurrection, how cheerfully can 
he submit to be buried in it, and raised again, when he 
feels that in the same act he commemorates the one and 
typifies the other ! 

3. But baptism is still designed for more than this. 
It is to its recipient an act of profession. This we learn 
from Romans* vi: 1-6. Paul here runs an analogy be- 
tween the baptized and Christ. The analogy is this : 

1st. Christ died for sin — we die to sin. 

2d. After his death, Christ was buried — we, after our 
death to sin, are buried with him by baptism. 






APPENDIX. 351 

3d. His burial w.as proof of his death — so our burial is 
proof of our death : " We are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death." 

4th. Christ was raised to die no more, but to live unto 
God — so we are raised out of the water to die no more 
to sin, but to live unto God ; to walk in newness of 
life. 

4. It is an act in which we declare our faith in Jesus, 
as our great prophet, priest, and king, and yield our- 
selves entirely to his control. This Paul teaches us in 
Galatians iii : 27 : " For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." As we are cov- 
ered by our clothes, so are we by the authority of Jesus, 
the whole man is by voluntary dedication his. 

5. Baptism is dn act in which we recognize obligations. 
This is what Peter means when he says baptism is the 
answer of a good conscience toward God. In the rite, 
God presents claims; the conscience of the subject re- 
sponds to them. It is, therefore, in some respects, like 
the oath of allegiance. The Government presents claims 
or obligations to all who would become naturalized, which 
of course they assume when they take the oath. And 
if they are honest, have at the time a good conscience, 
it is to them the answer or stipulation of a good con- 
science. 

6. Baptism is * the dividing line between us and our 
sins. We come to Jesus by faith, and have him to say 
to us as he did to the leper : " I will ; be thou clean" — 
have his blood to purge our conscience from dead works, 
and we then wash them away in baptism. We leave 
them really and formally on that side of the water. 

If all the foregoing be true, reader, how important 
and significant an ordinance is baptism. We can not 



352 appendix. 

exalt it too highly unless we place it, as Mr. Lard has 
done, among the causes of justification and salvation 
But this, I hope, none will do who reads this book. 

Once more I recommend you to God and the word of 
his grace. 

Farewell. 



THE END. 



CATALOGUE 

OF THE 

SOUTH-WESTERN 

PUBLISHING HOUSE. 

J. R. GRAVES. — W. P. MARKS. — S. C. ROGERS. — E. F. P. TOCL. 

gkaves, harks & co., 

NASHVILLE, tenu. 



PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS. 

THE TENNESSEE BAPTIST. 

ISSUE 14,000 WEEKLY. 

J. R. GRAVES, J. M. PENDLETON, and A. C. DAYTON, Editors. 

ASSISTED BY AN ABLE CORPS OF CONTRIBUTORS, AMONG WHOM IS G. H. CSCBAID 

OF ENGLAND, THE MOST EMINENT CHURCH HISTORIAN OF THIS AGE. 

This paper contains the largest amount of original matter of any paper in the 
South or South-west. Its character is well known as a staunch titf.tis-t 
paper. 

It is either edited with unusual ability, by the editor and his correspond 3ti!s, 
or the doctrines and practices it advocates are tremendously true, since it has 
obtained an unparalleled circulation in a short time, which is rapidly in- 
creasing. 

It is designed to make the Tennessee Baptist just sin-h a paper as the d-3 
nomination needs, and the exigencies of the times deman 1. One paper of uni- 
versal circulation in the South and South-west, for purposes of intercoinmum- 
cifion, is greatly needed. The Tennessee Baptist is becoming that paper. 

TERMS. — 82.00 per annum, in advance; S3. 00 if payment is de!;ive0 
longer than twelve months 



F£R*ODICAL PUBLICA1 LONS. 



THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST HE VIEW. 

(ISSUE 1500. -QUARTERLY, $2 00 PER ANNUM.) 

Editors — J. R. Graves, Nashville. J. M. Pendleton, Union Univetfiii^. 
Tenn. A. C. Dayton, Nashville, Tcnn. 

This work entered upon its third volume January 1st, 1857. It hat 
already secured a high position as a Theological and Literary work ; and 
as a staunch denominational publication, it has no equal. The publishers 
will spare no expense in the typographical department, and confidently 
•appeal to the Baptist ministry and membership, South, to extend to it a 
liberal patronage. 

The following notices reflect the opinion of the Baptist press, South: 
Biblical Recorder, N. C. 

The work is decidedly a Baptist work: it sets forth and defends their 
views of scriptural doctrine with a clearness, pungency, and power which 
we have seldom seen equalled. We most heartily recommend this Review 
as an able exposition of Baptist orthodoxy. 

Religious Herald, Richmond, Va. 

Southern Baptist Review.— We have received No. 1 of Volume IT. of 
of this Review — Graves, Marks & Company, Publishers, Nashville — Elder 
J. R. Graves, J. M. Pendleton, and A. C. Dayton, Editors. It is 

much more Baptistic than the Christian Review, being devoted more ex- 
clusively to Baptist literature, to the maintenance of our tenets and 
practice, mid to refuting the objections of gainsayers. It is an able ant 
practical work, is doing good service, and ought to receive a libera' 
patronage. 



THE CHILDREN'S MONTHLY BOOK. 

EDITED BY UNCLE ROBIN AND AUNT ALICE. 

SI 00 PER ANNUM— IN ADVANCE. 
JUST THE THING FOR YOUR CHILDREN! 

"Tender Grass for little Lambs." 

This is a Southern publication, beautifully illustrated, and edited b? 
Uncle hobin and Aunt Alice, with special reference to its moral and intei 
Jectual influence upon the young mind. 

It is pronounced the best publication for children that has yet appeared *» 
Anerica. Specimen copies sent if desired. 

Address GRAVES. MARKS & CO., Nashulie, Tens- 



CATAfcOCJUE OF COOKS. 



THEODOSIA ERNEST; 

OR, 

THE HEROINE OF FAITH. 

Volume I. ; pp. 400; $1. 

THEODOSIA ERNEST; 

OR, 

1M DAYS' TRAVEL IN SEARCH OF THE CHURCH. 

Volume II. ; pp. 485; $1. 

It has been said by those well acquainted with our religious literature, that a 
two denominational works of equal ability and vahie have ever been written io 
America. The first volume treats of the Act and Subjects of Baptism, in connec- 
tion with the Conversion and Baptism of Theodosia, — and of Restricted Com- 
munion, — to relieve the doubts of several of her near relatives and friends. The 
second volume treats exclusively of Church Polity; or which, of all the rival 
sects in Christendom, is the Church of Christ, or like the church at Jerusalem, 
or the churches of Judea, Samaria, and Galatia, or are they all equally scriptural 
churches? The essential characteristics of a scriptural church are first ascer- 
tained by a thorough examination of the Scriptures, and the organization, polity, 
doctrines, and history of all the so-called "evangelical churches," tried by these 
scriptural characteristics. It is a text-book on Church Polity, as volume first ia 
upon the Act, the Subjects of Baptism, and the Communion Question. The logic 
is irresistible, and the style of the works of such inimitable freshness, that whoever 
reads one page will never stop satisfied short of a perusal cf the entire series. 
Christians of all names read them with equal avidity. 

If it is said they are novels, that the characters and narrative part are fictitious, 
let it be answered, So are the parables of the Saviour, — of "The Prodigal Son,* 
of "The Pvich Man and Lazarus," of "The Wicked Husbandmen;" let it bo an- 
swered, So is the narrative of Bunyan's immortal work, and of Milton'a Paradise 
Lost. The Saviour's hearers understood as well as Bunyan's and Milton's readers 
understand, perfectly well, that these were fictitious narratives, employed to gain 
attention to a real truth. Such fiction is no falsehood. It is not intended to deceive, 
and it does not deceive. Its object is accomplished when it has won the attention 
to the truth of which it is made the vehicle. 

These volumes are admirably suited to be the pastor's assistants. With a little 
effort to bring them to the notice or place them within the reach of his people, they 
will be read, and especially by the young, when no other religious book would be 
opened. 

They are beautiful gift-books from parents to children, and from one Christian 
friend to another. Their interest will continue while opposing sects exist. 

14,000 copies of the first volume were sold in the first six months after its appear- 
ance, anl it is believed that the second volume will obtain a still larger circulation 
in the same period. 

The argument is complete in each volume, upon the subject treated, so that either 
may be read without the other. 

From the Biblical Recorder, iV. C. 

Theodosia; ok, The Heroixe of Faith. 

We have read with no little interest this most excellent book. It possesses All th? 
seriousness of truth, in tracing step by step the progress of a sincere inquirer after 
tier duty We can no better express the high estimate we place ip^h it than bj 



CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 



anying, that if its author should ever write another hook, it will call forth his higher, 
skill to make one that shall equal in interest his Theodosia Ernest. . . . The spirit which 
Theodosia discovers in her search £..'. the right way — her struggles in breaking froiL 
old connections — the giving up the cuurch in which she was early received, in ordei 
to discharge a duty, will find a response in the hosoni of thousands who have beet 
sirnilarlj situated. 

From the True Union, Baltimore. 

This work first appeared in the Tennessee Baptist, and now comes out in a hand 

some volume, with a portrait of Theodosia. It is a series of strong and conclusive 

arguments upon the mode and subjects of Baptism and the close communion qw* 

ti.m. with a very slight veil of fiction to impart additional interes' t« the work. 

From the Texas Baptist 

As thousands fall in love with the " Heroine of Faith" upon first sight — at Iht 
publishers find it almost impossible to supply the demand for the book — as it ha a 
produced such an immediate and wide-spread enthusiasm — the philosopher, as well 
as the theologian, should inquire into the causes of its powerful effect*. So for as 
we have seen, the multitude of critics and reviewers have only admired the foliage, 
flower and fruit, without analyzing the soil, or seed, or root. Why will Theodosia 
accomplish immensely more good than any other hook upon the baptismal contro- 
versy? 

We bv]»~V« it Is Macaulay who says that the Pilgrim's Progress will he read by the 
child for tho story, by the Christian for the piety, ami by the genius for the Hterarj 
merit. This v. ill equally apply to Theodosia. We ventured to prophesy several years 
since of a. eiasv of teachers who shall arise from the future, to adapt moral instruc- 
tion to grown people, in the same natural and attractive style in which Sunday-school 
books interest and instruct children; and the author who may, with graphic power. 
represent ethics and theology in persons, acts, and scenes, will be read by excited 
millions, and will bless each delighted reader. To prove this statement we need only 
refer to Buuyau. This prophecy, which we uttered several years since, has its fulfil- 
ment commenced in Theydosia. We hail "The Heroine of Faith" as - the morning 
star" of that brighter day. when moral truth shall be addressed to the aptitudes and 
capacities of the mind in histories, memoirs, biographies — in parables, narratives, 
illustrations — in hooks adapting •• moral instruction to grown people in the eame 
natural and instructive style in which Sunday-school books interest and instruct 
children." 

From the Commission, Ridimond, Va. 

[This notice was written by A. M. Poindexter. Editor.] 

Theodosia Ernest; or, The Heroine of Faith. Nashville, Tenn.: Graves, Marks 
& Rutland. New York: Sheldon, Blakeman £ Co. 

We have received from the author this interesting ami valuable work. We read 
portions of it as they were issued in the Tennessee Baptist, and since the publication 
of the hook had occasionally looked over some of the chapters. Since receiving the 
copy from the author, we have found time to give it a thorough perusal. We had 
before been pleased with what we had read, but had no just appreciation of the inte- 
rest and value of the work. It attracts the mind with the fascination of a novel, 
but the interest of the narrative only fixes the attention upon the argument. Th<! 
author has evidently no mean capacity as a writer of fiction, but he displays even 
superior ability for close analysis and correct reasoning. It is one of the fairest and 
most conclusive, ami certainly the most attractive, arguments wo have read upon the 
subjects — Baptism and Communion. It is written in a kind and courteous spirit. 
There is nothing to offend the most refined taste or delicate sensibility. 

Buy the book and read it, and we are sure you will desire to promote its circulation 

From the Home and Foreign Journal. 
[Review by Elder James B. Taylor, Richmond, Va.j 
This is one of the books to bo unconditionally recommended. 

From the Louisiana Baptist. 
T( teaches the truth in a forcible and agreeable manner. In point of argument 
few f,orks on baptism excel it, while it has the advantage of being so plain that all 
cau comprehend it. It is, upon the vhole, a masterly production— a remarkable 
look 



CAT&LQGVE CF EO0K.5. 



THE 6MAT ffiON ° WHEEL ; 



MfiTIIODISM SHOWN TO BE REPUBLICANISM BACKWARDS 
AXD CHRISTIANITY REVERSED. 

By J. R. Graves, Editor of Tennessee Baptist. 
57 '6 pages ; price SI. 00, sent by mail ; or $75 by the hundred copies. 

This work in twelve months from its publication reached its twelfth editior. .-, 
without the usual appliances of publishers to push their publications. The dz\ 
wand for it is still unabated, and is exhausting an edition per month. 

It is considered in all respects the most thorough review and expose of gov- 
ernment ani: peculiar doctrines of Methodist Hierarchy ever published. It ij 
not an attack upon individuals , but upon principles — the popish features oA 
American Methodism. 

Every American Churchman and Christian ought to read 'bis work 



orixioxs of the tress. 

New Hork Recorder and Register, New York. 

This volume is a popular and effective onslaught upon Methodism as taug&t 
in- the Discipline, and illustrated practically in the South-west. * * 

This book illustrates the whole subject of Methodism as seen from such a po- 
sition and under such lights, and makes an exposure which cannot but be felt 
Tvith immense damage to a system so utterly without warrant of scripture or 
mtiquity. A system of bishops, like a system of monarchy, must be very old 
\q be respectable. 

The Watchman and Reflector, Boston. 
In contrasting " Cook's Centuries " with the Great Iron Wheel, theeuuci 
says ; " In such a ' formal estimate of Methodism,' it is certainly surprising 
that the author. [Mr. Cook,] who is an able defender of Congregational polity, 
should have passed over as he has the governmental framework of the Metho- 
dist Church- - its essential monarchy and consequent incongruity, as flourishing 
in the soil of democratic institutions. This argument, which the author oftht 
1 Great Iron Wheel ' has used with decided cogency and effect, is displaced in 
Dr. Cook's book by points such as we have enumerated, but which all put to- 
gether have, as compared with this one, far less metal and weight." 

Report of Committee appointed by the Publication Society of N. Ca. 
With greatly increased confidence in the truthfulness of the positions dis 
cussed in the Great Iron Wheel, and more than ever convinced that its circw 
latiou will have a tendency to correct error, and to disseminate sound, script*) 
• a? views upon the subject of Church Government, 

We remain your faithful servants. 

JAS. McI>ANIE"L 
A. MCDOWELL 

aw. joitNso* 



CATALOGUE OF BOOKS, 



From the Puritan Recorder. Co?igregational paper, Boston. 

This book should be compared with " Cooke's Centuries,'' for such a compari 
son vrill show, in a striking light, two portraits of the same face, drawn l>5 
writers a thousand miles apart, whose labors were unknown to each other, and 
yet in the main features of the portrait, marvellously concurring and thus con- 
firming the fact that such an original exists. But in the comparison, it will by 
seen that Mr. Graves' book presents a portrait much. more highly colored than 
the other. 

Wherever the other has been found to be too strong meat, this will not do at 
all. Those whose eyes are not fully open, or who see men as trees walking, 
will hardly be able to digest such a book. But we have reason to know that 
there are multitudes among us now, that are of" full age," even of those who, 
11 by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil," 
to whom such strong meat belongeth. It ie the product of a powerful mind, 
of a firm, unflinching purpose, and a flaming heart. It goes over much ground 
not traversed by " Cooke's Centuries," though it deals little in the results of 
Methodism, which is the main design of that book. Its author occupies an iu- 
iluential position at the South, and the acceptableness of I113 work has been 
well tested there by a rapid sale extending through four years. * * 

From the True Union, Baltimore, Md. 

This is a volume of between five and six hundred pages, consisting of a series 
of forty letters, addressed to Bishop Soule, and originally published in the 
Tennessee Baptist. They are now presented in a book form, in compliance 
with the wishes of many who read them, as they appeared. 

The quotations he gives from the Methodist publications, which flood the great 
West, fully justify this assertion. Our fear is, that those who need to be con- 
vince 1 of their errors, will not read a word which so merciless lays the axe at 
the root of those errors. Truth in this book is presented in a dish so highly 
spiced, that those palates for which it is designed may refuse the wholesome 
nutriment it contains. If Methodists will only read it, we see not how they can 
fail to renounce a form of government so clearly proved to be unscriptural and 
anti-republican. 

From the Western Watchman, kt. Louis, Mo. 
The unique title of the book was suggested by a passage in the speech of ih.3 
laie Rev. Mr. Cookman, a distinguished Methodist preacher. In illustrating 

• the peculiar workings of Methodism, Mr. Cookman said ; " There is the great 
outer wheel of episcopacy, which accomplishes its entire revolution once in four 
years. To this arc attached twenty-eight smaller wheels, styled Annual Con- 
ferences, moving round once a } T ear ; to those are attached one hundred wheels, 
designated Presiding Elders, moving twelve hundred other wheels, termed 
Quarterly Conferences every three months ; to these are attached four thousand 
whccVs styled traveling preachers, moving round once a month, and commu- 
nicating motion to thirty thousand wheels, called Class Leaders, moving round 
once a week, and who in turn, being attached to between seven and eight hun- 
dred thousand wheels, called members, give a sufficient impulse to whirl them 
around every day. What a machine is this!" 

This great " machine " is very curiously represented in a cut, in which the 

% Bishops, Conferences, Presiding Elders, traveling preachers, and class leaders, 
whirl about, in one great complicated system. The book tells a pretty plain 
tale, going to the origin of Methodism, tracing cut its early history, showing ho* 



CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 



the system rose, and became what it is. He quotes the declarations of the most 
eminent Methodist writers that Methodism is a human invention, that it came to 
be what it is by accident, that "Wesley declared himself opposed to episcopacy, 
and aid not believe in three orders in the ministry, that the system is opposed to 
republicanism, and that the Methodist terms of communion are more close than 
of other sects. These and many other positions are sustained by Methodist 
authorities, and the book contains, altogether, a very curious collection of fact? 
relative to the workings of Methodism in America. It has its author's charac 
teristic faults, which we need not point out, as, like every thing about him, 
they stand out boldly, and can be readily seen. 

This book will bo read, and will have its influence. The topics discussed in 
it, are legitimate and proper for discussion. Methodists are not too scrupulous 
to oppose, or expose the doctrines of other sects, nor too modest to extol their 
own. They must, therefore, expect their system to be investigated. Brother 
G raves has used his liberty pretty freely, used plain language, but, if we mis- 
take not, his book will make its mark. 

From the Cliristian Chronicle, Philadelphia. 
The author has been the editor of the Tennessee Baptist for many years, and 
in that paper these letters were originally published. They now appear in a 
neat bound volume for preservation and circulation. Mr. Graves is a thorough 
republican, and earnestly opposed to all else in either civil or ecclesiastical gov- 
ernments. He considers the Methodist denomination as constantly preaching 
and publishing in a way to misrepresent his own denomination, and to preju- 
dice the people against it. Thus he here appears in defence of the truth in the 
case, sustaining with a candid and vigorous pen the principles he holds, and 
exposing the unseriptural character and pernicious tendency of Methodism. 
We commend the book to all who would understand the merits of the question 
at issue. This volume contains nearly six hundred pages, and a striking en- 
graving of the author. 

From the Biblical Recorder, North Carolina. 

This is a book of 576 pp., and embraces forty Letters originally published 
ki the Tennessee Baptist. We are glad to see them sent forth in -their present 
durable form, as we think the work is calculated to do good. It is a thorough 
exposition and refutation of the unseriptural and anti-republican organization 
and government of Episcopal Methodism. The author's style is bold and fear- 
less ; and, by some, may be considered harsh and censorious. But, he deals 
in truth ; and many provoking circumstances, somewhat peculiar to Western 
controversy, palliate, if they do not justify, the seeming severity which per- 
vades the volume. 

We saw it announced a few days since that a Methodist preacher of Virginia 
Intends to prepare an elaborate work on the Relations of Methodism to Re- 
publicanism, and requests his friends having pertinent documents to forward 
them to him. We would respectfully recommend to him a careful perusal of 
" The Great Iron Wheel," as we think he can hardly do his subject justice with- 
out reading it. 

We hope all Baptists will procure it, and aid in its circulation to the utmost 
3f their ability. J? ouglit to be read, especially in these days of -sligiouz eon 
trover sy. 



3477 7 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



